« Sandbox - 23sep15 | Main | Scattershots – 25sep15 (updated) »

23 September 2015

Comments

Son of Jon

Article 6, paragraph 3 states that .. no religous test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. End of story. Carson is a religious zealot in his own right. Add him along with Huckabee to the growing list of people who should have no part in politics.

ConservtvForum

Okay.... and why would Huckabee be excluded?
Is it because you don't want Christian fundamentalists as a president?

Many that are knowledgeable of Islam don't consider it a real religion but an ideology.
Putting someone in charge of America that believes in sharia law would be a travesty. There is no way this can stand side by side with the Constitution.
Geert Wilders knows about Islam. Here is what he told us.
https://youtu.be/EtTsHNC5iiw
Howard

George Rebane

SoJon 336pm - Excellent point, I was hoping for its early inclusion in this comment stream. To that I would add Art 3 Sec 3 on treason.

When I and my family immigrated in 1949, we and all like us were screened extensively (a 3.5 month process) to make sure we had not a hint of any prior relation to or favorable sentiments of Nazism or communism - both ideologies. That was to satisfy America's security interests.

Now a person's religion, as mentioned above, trumps his ideology in the hierarchy of belief systems. Islam declares daily in its scripture, writings, exhortations of its leaders, and its horrific acts on multiple continents that it is the mortal enemy of the west in general and America in particular. I don't think that such considerations entered the Founders' minds when they wrote Art 6 Sec 3. And as progressives keep harping that the Constitution is a dated document and should be interpreted with the times, I wonder how a progressive like you (a secular humanist?) brings all that into concordance. Oh yes, I do realize that in some ideologies such concordance is not a requirement. If so, then crickets will do.

Jon

Hey my son, I agree. Carson is quite dangerous with his views on the world around him. And on his obvious insanity on vaccines. Don't think he will ultimately have what it takes to cross the line of nomination. To his credit, he is blunt with his wacked views of world events. Huckabee is a side show only, to assure his radio show will survive another few years- for whoever is listening. Cruz, not a chance, Rubio, not this time, Paul- has been destroyed from within, Christie- unlikable, scandal ridden, career mostly over in public sector. KASICH is the only hope for the Republicans in the General.

Son of Jon

A Muslim fundamentalist in office is no different than a Christian fundamentalist in office. Both have their belief systems firmly in place. Would they be able to keep their wacky beliefs to themselves? Carson did not specify what kind of Muslim he did not want in public office. According to Carson any and all Muslims, fundamentalist or otherwise, are not welcome in his world.
A zealot will not be elected as President. The people understand this and would not nominate a zealot. That is why Carson and Huckabee can save their money and go home now. Nobody wants to listen to their Bible based so called truths.
The fear mongers among us want us believe that a secret Muslim is already in the Oval office wearing Christian robes. These people are a waste of space...politically speaking.

George Rebane

SoJon 441pm - I believe you have established your bona fides as a direct relative of our regular 'Jon'. You also have difficulty understanding the main points of my commentaries. Comparing a Christian fundamentalist in office to a Muslim fundamentalist similarly placed reveals pretty much all we need to know about your reading skills and thought processes.

'How do the beliefs of Christian and Muslim fundamentalists differ viz their attitudes toward America?' would be a great question on a standardized test for 8th graders.

Account Deleted

"A zealot will not be elected as President."
SoJ at 4:41
As opposed to the one that was elected to the office twice?
Or did you just propose a religious test?

fish

Posted by: Jon | 23 September 2015 at 04:30 PM

Always make sure to let a progressive dictate your choices political gentlemen! That's a sure fire winning strategy!

Frankly I'd rather have Biden.....jon says he's an excellent debater....and frankly since the democrats have managed to shun him on numerous previous opportunities.... much like Dole, McCain, etc. on the Republican side, surely it's "Shotgun Joes" time to shine!

Jon

fish, you must be forgetting the verbal beat-down Joe inflicted on poor Paul Ryan, who was at a loss for anything to counter Joe's nice blend of humanity and comfort with the facts. Paul Ryan was picked for the precise reason that he could run circles around anyone when it came to knowing facts and figures.

George Rebane

fish 709pm & jon 715pm - not sure what these candidacies have to do with Muslims and/or other zealots holding public office - the sandbox awaiteth.

fish

Posted by: George Rebane | 23 September 2015 at 07:16 PM

As shown in the commenter/time reference. Response to yet another jon post offering to save the republican party from itself in a thread having nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Bill  Tozer

The operative word here is devote. If someone was, say, a Muslim in name only, no one would have any problem with it. Just look how Romney was racked over the coals because of his odd sect called the Mormons. I do not think that Romney would answer to Joseph Smith in lieu of the Constitution if he was President. Sure, his moral values of being a nice guy, a good husband, father, neighbor, leader, President, or the guy you see driving by testify to his regilious beliefs. It is a flaw in politics not to hit the other guy with both fists, thus in the political world, he was not a good fit for the job.

Nobody has a problem with any Muslim in name only. The devotees are a whole different ball of wax. Islam is a political system, not just some spiritual beliefs one has. Loosely akin to electing an Orthodox Jew as opposed to a Jewish person who visits the synagogue now and then, aka, the typical American Jew like Debbie.
If one believes in their heart of heart that this nation should put any village no matter how small under Sharia Law or like the children in Iran that have to repeat several times daily in school from day one that Ametica is the Great Satan and it becomes ingrained in their little consciousness and world view, then that person should not be President of the United States if they held those beliefs. Maybe dean or department head somewhere or even a mayor, but not President or Cabinet member.
There is that oath part (with or without a Bible) that they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. Think that is asking too much of the zealots, if they are honest within themselves. Now a great deceiver might sneak in, but there is the other branches of gov't to rein him/her in....hopefully. Islam is not compatible with life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Obedience to Allah or even plain o' obedience are not words we usually toss around a lot in democracies.
Vetting is a good thing.

An unrelated link, but perhaps some light on the subject.

http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/breaking-mainstream-media-stated-immigrant-was-tripped-proven-false-he-is-actually-a-known-terrorist-leader-video/

Ben Emery

Just for the record.

This treaty was signed into law by John Adams, one of the founders that had a good grasp of the spirit in which the United States was created.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Todd Juvinall

Things change. You tell us all the time we've got to get hip to new. The new is maybe Muslims would not be a good fit.

George Rebane

BenE 921pm - This is 2015 Ben, what is your point?

Bill  Tozer

Oh, any U.S. citizen that was born here and is of the age of 35 and is not a convicted felon (?) can become President of this country. The question remains if you want to have a doomsday prophet with his finger on the button believing lauching a massive first strike would usher in his religious brave new world?
Supposed Johnny Reb got radicalized and had no felonies, was born here, and age 35. Perhaps an articulate clean good looking Negro...er...Muslim to play off Biden's characterization of Obama. Yes, he can run, but should he be the leader of the free world. Hell no. His believe system is all those who won't pay the Islam Tax or convert to Islam after a warning should be stuck across the shoulder with the blade, i.e., beheaded. That is why the most devote Muslims behead, as per the teachings of the Prophet. Does not say guns or blow them up, just strike across the shoulder with the blade.

Should an anarchist be elected as President? No, even though he/she is eligible to run. It's that pesky solemnly swear to defend and uphold the Constition part again.

Let's not confuse can/cannot with should/should not.

Todd Juvinall

I seem to recall a couple of airline pilots who wanted to see Allah. They hid their doomsday and took a lot of innocent people with them. Also, how about a Boko Haram black. Now there is a real winner for President.

Just like the left is always ragging on we conservatives who believe in the sanctity of the Constitution that it needs to a "living" document and how it needs to be brought up to date, I say well, Hmmm. We should allow a person who believes a guy is gonna jump out of a well and we all die night not be a good fit.

Steven Frisch

"And as such, these debates again underline that a devout person’s religion trumps his ideology – God’s plan and druthers supersede that of Man. In all nations with a religious citizenry allegiance is paid to ‘God and country’

Actually there is a substantial body of people in the country for whom the dictum "God and Country" does not mean the same thing it does for George, and many of them are Christians. The premise of your piece is that rational man is somehow incapable of separating cosmology and ideology, or from separating ideology from decision-making, and that is a false premise.

So if I were a Christian, and the portion of Christianity I adopted to guide my life were a code of ethics and philosophical belief system that respects life, honors certain traditions, and elevates doing good over doing evil, and I applied that code to governance, and I separated my personal belief system from the making decisions under the equal protection doctrine, which is what many Christians do, I would be perfectly appropriate in a position of governance.

To think that a substantial portion of the Muslim community odes not hold a similar code seems to me to be illogical. I know a number of Muslims who do not believe in the creation of the Caliphate, a one-world Islamic theocratic state under which man is ruled by Sharia law. It is as likely that a Muslim holds their God over their state as it is a Christian.

" I do not support a devout Muslim having any public office or post that may put him in a position to do harm to our nation and advance the cause of Islam which in the large I oppose."

I take it that means you also would not support a devout Christian as President of the United States because they may confuse cosmology with governance?

And who is to define what 'devout' is?

The fact that you cannot discern between those who would elevate their religion over the state in the case of Islam, but believe you can in the case of Christianity, or prefer to allow Christians to elevate portions of their church doctrine over the state, which is richly evidenced in comment here, is irrelevant to the Constitution.

The Constitution allows for no religious test, yours, mine or anyones.

George Rebane

StevenF 949am - Sadly again, you understand none of the premises for the above commentary.

However, I do maintain that we must take Islam at its word and at its actions. Islam's word is consistent both in its scripture and the daily utterances of its leaders (secular and spiritual). To devout Muslims the goal of Islam is a noble one. And since I cannot judge the degree of a person's devotion (especially under the umbrella of taqiyya), I must acknowledge its extent to the benefit of the declared believer instead of arbitrarily imposing my own discount on it.

I also believe that you have successfully hidden your understanding of the robust difference between cosmological and ideological belief systems.

And overall, your logic in attempting to equivocate Christianity here is again mind boggling, but totally expected and normative to how you and yours view the world.

Paul Emery

George writes:

" I do not support a devout Muslim having any public office or post that may put him in a position to do harm to our nation and advance the cause of Islam which in the large I oppose."

Does that include Muslim Americans who are in the Military or are school teachers or police officers?

Walt

Paul.. Care to elaborate on the military aspect? Ft. Hood ring a bell?
That Muslim SOB is a good example of taking a closer look,, and everyone looked the other way because of political correctness.( Oh NOooo... We can't say or do a thing about his radical statements... Someone will call us racist, and WE might get court marshaled)
You don't comprehend the Muslim idealism. It religion over everything else. So. How can you tell just which one's to trust?

Like "clock boy".. That was a setup. NO science project (despite the claim) He didn't "make it",( just a gutted radio Shack time piece) and funny,, it didn't tell time, it counted DOWN. ( Did LIB news publish that?)

Now the Muslim in the W.H. has sent an invite to the brat.
Yup,, just another young victim of the anti Muslims.... Right??

Besides. 1 in 3 believe "O" is Mussy. His actions (or inactions) in the Middle East are pretty good proof. He has backed every radical action over there, and or/ just downplayed it when it didn't look good for him.

George Rebane

PaulE 1131am - Good question Paul, I was waiting for it. I guess it all depends on the times and the responsibilities considered. I don't think that Muslim school teachers can do much harm to the nation or the kids while practicing their trade. Were they to convert their classroom into a madrasah, it would be quickly discovered.

In previous times were you to have a known background as a Nazi (national socialist) or a Communist, you would have been disqualified for all three careers. Today, I would be leery of a Muslim law enforcement officer who would be detailed to guard important national leaders or have access to critical communication and/or energy distribution nodes. In the military, I would not support devout Muslims in the combat arms, and would have the same concerns as for the police in other branches.

I suppose all of this could change if international Islam took a radically different turn and volubly and repeatedly renounced the scriptural teachings mentioned in my commentary. That could happen. The Jews did it viz their treatment of gentiles and punishments for blasphemy, as did the Christians. Tough question, more to be said.

Paul Emery

So George in order for you to feel comfortable with Muslims being in one of those roles (see above) would it not be necessary for applicants to those jobs or military members to state their religious preference before being deployed or accepted for employment. In your view is that Constitutional. It would involve having some kind of check box stating that they are a Muslim. Isn't a persons religious inspiration a personal and private expression and protected under out Constitution? ?

Jon

"He (O) has backed every radical action over there" Walt

Walt, can please you cite a reliable source where we see Obama backing "radical actions" over there. Whatever that means. Thanks.

If our President supports such actions in the Middle East, why hasn't the House GOP or the AG's office brought the President up on Treason charges by now?

Walt

Really "jon"? You that out of touch? Even LIB news covered a little of it.
Can you say "pro Muslim Brotherhood"? (until it's radical anti U.S., and terrorist ties was reported on.) That's just a small taste. (really small) No run off and do some of your own homework on the subject.

Double "REALLY"!!!????? The AG??? Your joking.....Right?? And you claim not to smoke dope.

Bill  Tozer

Paul, if you added the word "devote" in front of all the times you used "Muslim", then you would be following along with the post instead of inserting your broken records. Devote Muslim. We are not discussing Muslims (well you seem to be), the topic is should a devote follower of Islam (a political system) be President of these here United State of America. A devote follower of Islam working for the Secret Service, Justice Department, any cabinet position, Intel, CIA, Department of Defense, .Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, or even the Censes Bureau? Or, these new departments of transparency that seem to be popping up all over the place recently. Devote Muslim could be a fire fighter or a school teacher. Lord only knows that they could not do any worse in public education than what we have now.

Bill  Tozer

Walt, a lot of us heard most of Obama's first and top priority in office; The Cairo Speech.
No use rehashing that Egypt considered The Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization and barred them from the speech....until Obama insisted, personally invited them, and sat them in the front row. Must had been thinking of his Grandpappy when he faced the audience, outstretched his arms in a open hug position and said "I am one of you." Mysteriously, those words have been deleted from the official Whitehouse Transcript of The Cairo Speech. Very odd. Somebody better fire the transcriber or wack her/his pee pee.

So Walt, I wonder where all this talk about Obama being a Muslim came from? Hmmm. Another one of life's unsolved mysterious wonders. Now that the heat is on with this Great Migration, suddenly Obama supporters are pointing back to 2008 and say it originated from Hillary's camp, Oh boy, that poor woman needs to catch a break I tell ya.

Walt

Yes Bill. Interesting how the revisionists work overtime to cover "O"'s ass.
Then there is the "fact telling" of Rev. Write. ( remember him "jon"?) Even he told of "O"'s Muslim ties. ( Or is the Rev. going to hell for lying?)
How bout the drone strikes? Only POS pickup trucks and low (real low)value targets get waxed by a million dollar missile. No terrorist concentrations. Not even tanks.
Remember ("jon") ALL strikes are approved through the W.H. No button gets pushed without "O"'s approval.( or Valerie Jerrod's) The lower the Muslim casualties, the better.

The real question is,, is "O" more Sunni, or Shiite?

Steven Frisch

OK, I see, your defense is that I did not understand what you said. I understood it perfectly. You are willing to accept Christians who hold God over country but not Muslims, even if they hold country over God. I do believe that is both the definition of prejudice, and a religious test.

Jon

Oh yeah Walt, obviously he's Shiite with the Iran deal he forced through. On the other hand, he obviously supports the work of ISIL, so perhaps..wait, no definitely..Sunni! Great question Walt! Perhaps one for the next Repub debate.

Walt

Yes Steve, Christians don't separate you head from you body if you don't "believe" or convert. We don't destroy artifacts of history because they conflict with the Bible, as what's happening today.
Do you see Christians attacking Jews because they don't eat pork? Do we give the Hindus grief? How bout Buddha? Have we set fire to China Town in Frisco?

So DO TELL how that "religion of Peace" works for ya'. Do point out just what part of it is "peaceful". Hell. They slaughter their own by the thousands.
It fine to beat your wife, cut off your kid's head if he/she shames the family. It's just fine.
You better understand them before you start to defend them.

Walt

Which one are you "jon"? Ya' hate the Jews that much?
Did you do your homework? It's time to turn it in.

George Rebane

PaulE 1215pm - The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If your belief system - religion or ideology - demonstrably teaches "Death to America", then we would be insane to march lock step with only the religious freedom provision that was written for people who believe in 'Long live America!' Again, Articles 3 and 6 need to be interpreted together.

(No need to respond again to the Christianity equivalence proposition. Cf my 1047am.)

Walt

This is what "jon" and Steve stick up for?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/24/asia/bangladesh-bloggers-islamist-hit-list/index.html

You ever hear of a Christian group putting out a hit list on dissenting opinion?

BTW I don't want "devout" Muslims in positions of authority in the military. Maybe you guys have heard of the service men getting the boot because they "intervened" ,ON BASE ,in child molestation cases. " We can't intervene.. It's their culture." seems our own military must allow child molesters free run.

Paul Emery

So George you don't have to be of Middle Eastern descent to be a Muslim. In fact I have several friends who are devout Sufi's (Muslims) that you can't tell apart from your average Baptist. How do you propose we ferret out the Muslims when applying for what you consider a sensitive position as to protect ourselves by preventing them from being in a position to do harm, as you put it. I believe you are serious about this so you must have given some thought as to how to make it work.


Jon

"You ever hear of a Christian group putting out a hit list on dissenting opinion?" Walt

Walt..um, yes. Most of these hate groups are Christian based.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups#Anti-Muslim

Just as ISIL and others are Muslim based. Same intent, same goals, different f-ed up brand of their supposed religion.

Jon

I particularly find the group- Aggressive Christianity- an interesting little meeting of some good ole' country boys. Real nice young men.

Walt

OH... sighting a hate group's list? Your full of shi.. surprises.
and using "Berkeley U" of the net no less.

I will bet good money your on the "no fly" list. If not,, you should be.

George Rebane

Paul 457pm - Yes Paul, that is a problem for a liberal society, especially an exceptionally liberal one like ours. Maintaining an open countenance against existential threats to its existence is not guaranteed to work. In times of crises Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt suppressed liberties for Americans of certain descent and sentiment. In hindsight today we dun these decisions, but none of us were there to witness and sense the threat to our way of life.

You mistake my own feelings about the fog of Islam for well thought out national policy about which I made no claims. While Sufis looking like Baptists may not pose a danger to Americans, devoted Wahhabis may be a very clear and present danger in certain public service slots. We may be and probably are totally vulnerable to such attacks unless/until America is again in extremis.

I have great respect for Islam as a cosmology that can so effectively marshal the poor and ignorant, and Islamists as people who courageously put Allah's word before their own earthly wellbeing. Please reread my previous responses to understand the scope of my sentiments.

Paul Emery

George

I have read your comments several times and I find it discouraging that you would require a religious screening on American citizens before they would be eligible for military service or certain domestic jobs or elected office.

Jon

Is this not reminiscent of the Know Nothings all over again Paul?

Jon

Walt, you should contact Aggressive Christianity on the link provided. Group is right up your alley.

Todd Juvinall

Islam is a ideology not a religion. All semantics. No Muslim in charge of this Judaeo-Christian country.

Jon

Judeo-Christian country? Where is that mentioned in the Constitution?

Steven Frisch

Posted by: George Rebane | 24 September 2015 at 03:58 PM

Well is the Constitution is not a suicide pact then we should overturn the 2nd amendment as while we are at it :)

George Rebane

Well, it looks like neither PaulE or StevenF want to have a serious discussion about this. So be it.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: George Rebane | 24 September 2015 at 09:23 PM

I posted a totally serious comment George as my first post and you denigrated it. Why would I think you can have a serious discussion?

I am pointing out a perfectly serious point; if the Constitution can be overridden to accommodate your fear of Islam it can be overridden to stop the 20,000 deaths a year from gun violence. I would argue a lot more Americans are killed by guns than Muslims.

Paul Emery

George 9:23

I take offense to that statement. I am just asking you how you would enact such a concept as to screen people's religion before employment in certain areas. Pretty simple. Give me an idea how you would do it. George, you are ignoring the reality of what you propose. To say that an American citizen cannot serve in a combat role in the US military because it is perceived that he is a threat because of his religion makes a mockery of our Constitution. You really surprise me on this one.

Todd Juvinall

We want those protecting ue to be real Americans. Pretty simple.

Paul Emery

How do you screen people Todd to make that happen. Talk is cheap, the cost of action is colossal. What"real American' test would serve that purpose.

George Rebane

StevenF 932pm & PaulE 956pm - I have already stated that 1) the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and 2) Arts 3 & 6 should be considered together when there is credible evidence that a citizen's belief system can put the country in danger. You chose to ignore both points and not even consider the problem. In my commentary I gave my position as a response and expansion of Dr Carson said. I believe it's a serious problem where the incidents of 'green on blue' killings loudly cry out for some kind of defense/response especially now with Islamic 'migrants' from the mid-east flooding the west. Obama's response in the mid-east is to pull our troops out. Well, we can't pull out of North America, it's our home. And you guys are responding to this as if I were proposing to keep a Mormon or Catholic or Jew from public office because of their faith. Or worse, to make the US into a Christian theocracy.

If Islam to you is just another faith in a long list of them, then we have nothing really go forward with. But I do believe we have a problem (yes, and it's a constitutional one also), trying to get a fully formulated public policy out of me in this comment stream tells me that you're only interested in pursuing a 'gotcha moment' instead of having a serious discussion.

And for the careful reader, I have made no proposals. But the leftwing readers are good at making such proposals out of thin air and then attributing them to targets of opportunity. But I have shared what I believe to be an existential danger to the country.

Todd Juvinall

With the Koran telling its adherents to force conversion or die, how can that Islamic dictate (practiced all over the globe) square with a "oath" to uphold the Constitution? I wonder how the "good" Muslims have figured out how to do that?

Jon

You can pull anything wacky out of any book of religion written centuries ago, including Christianity. But with your hatred in 5th gear its very convenient to focus on the dark stuff. Shall we pull out dark passages from the Bible as well? Plenty of those.

Bill  Tozer

Concerning the update's concluding sentence to this post.
'very existence will be denied until the next thousands die en masse within our borders, and then …". Oh goodie, I get to finish the sentence!
And then it will be called Workplace Violence, just like OK and 9/11 were, right?
The libs have painted themselves into a corner. They, like most everybody else, decry even the slightest hint of prejudice, injustice, and the UnAmerican way. No problem with that, But, they push it further wailing uncontrollably about anything that is opposed to "we are all children of the Universe and borders must be removed from all maps and, for good measure, ask each one of us what would the Pope do when it is politically expedient.

So, the Progressive Elite are trapped. They cannot utter that one culture is better or worse than another, but rather we are all the same, and we must be blind (under the pretense of "colorblind") to any differences or shortfalls of other cultures who are allowed in. 'We must not judge, we must not examine, we must not challenge' our skewed beliefs is the mantra of the Better Party when confronted with the bodies of slain US citizens and military personnel on US soil. Or, when confronted with honor killings of their wayward Americanized children, widespread spousal abuse, domestic violence, and believing Death to America will arrive when the Muslim community achieves the majority of the populace in Europe by 2050 and later in The USA. The Left's counterattack is to minimize the priorities of devote Muslims standing in support and empathy to Muslim Raghead loving Murderers. The old Arab phrase "den of thieves" comes to mind.

They libs cannot acknowledge any of this in fear of violating their relative morality principals and well as a host of non-judgemental head in the sand "we are all the same hyphenated Americans of some descent". Must not look. No place for treason talk.....er...reason talk or a calm discussion looking at data and crime reports. Country of freedom, right? Not free to go there, are you libs? You are boxed in defending indefensible behavior of one (just one) culture.

Seems to me that one of the major grievances against the Throne in the Declaration of Independance was a real sticking point. The King failed to protect his subjects from the savages. Yes, I know the DOI is not our Constitution, so save your breath. We must not judge.
The libs could put a rattlesnake down their trousers and still fail to recognize a threat if it is in contradiction to their Better Party's planks.

larry wirth

Dr. Rebane cited the problem in his original essay. The Islamic ideology doesn't include the "render unto Caesar" part of Jesus's instruction.

This is a problem when a Muslim must choose between what Allah has privately told him and a lawful order of a superior.

As for Obama, he's likely neither Muslim nor Christian- his political orientation makes it almost certain that he is an atheist, like most communists/progressive.

Happy to entertain views and facts to the contrary.

Bill  Tozer

O
https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.254420818025296.63999.217926015008110/734458723354834/?type=3&theater

Bill  Tozer

Dr. Rebane told you so. I told you so. The Clash of Cultures with Economic Immigrants.

Where are all the white women??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249667/Germany-state-SIEGE-Merkel-cheered-opened-floodgates-migrants-gangs-men-roaming-streets-young-German-women-told-cover-mood-s-changing.html#ixzz3mwqyhhAM

Todd Juvinall

Bill Tozer | 28 September 2015 at 06:33 AM

When I traveled to Mexico with the family years ago we would stay in seaside hotels. When we would head to the pool or the beach there were Mexican men, younger guys, all over the place. I chatted with one of them and asked him why he was not at his job as it was Tuesday. He said this was his job. He was looking for lonely forlorn American women to "entertain". Seems that was quite the industry and it still might be.

The people that think the illegals and even the legal Muslims are going to "fit in" to a western culture are on bad drugs. You must conform or die. Maybe Merkel gets it now?

Bill  Tozer

Todd J.

https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/pb.217926015008110.-2207520000.1443451176./732750390192334/?type=3&theater

George Rebane

ToddJ 732am - Angela Merkel is between a demographic rock and a historical hard place. Years ago she famously and publicly pronounced 'Multi-kulti does not work.' after thousands of Muslims began forming and living in crime riddled ghettos in Germany's cities. They were not assimilating but colonizing. Yet economic growth demands a continuing increase in workforce which native Germans could not supply, hence the early invitation to Turks to come as guest workers. Well, they came and stayed instead and lived in insular communities.

The workforce problem remains today, as does Germany's self-imposed stain of keeping their population 'pure', as does their below 1.4 fertility rate (2.1 = stable population). No one is sure what fraction of recent Muslim arrives along with today's 'migrants' actually enter the workforce and become net wealth generators. But the number entering the ghettos is substantial, and there their income is the dole and from crime. The progressives have no problem promoting such a disaster in the US - another factor which differentiates us.

Todd Juvinall

George Rebane | 28 September 2015 at 08:37 AM

Maybe the German's need to bring in Ukrainians and Belarus types people. Same religions for the most part.

Bill  Tozer

A photo taken from Europe. The Religion of Peace practices free speech, but march against free speech. Quite odd. Somebody 'splain it to me, please.

https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.217983685002343.55586.217926015008110/735109766623063/?type=3&theater

The comments to this entry are closed.