Trump Could Simply Ignore Court’s Order Halting Travel Ban

Trump Could Simply Ignore Court’s Order Halting Travel Ban

Does our current status quo make our Constitution a suicide pact? Thomas Jefferson certainly said as much, warning that accepting judicial supremacy would make our founding document just that, a felo de se, as he put it in Latin.

Acceptance of judicial supremacy, by the way, is precisely why President Trump’s temporary ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations is on hold. Imagine that, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 78 that the judiciary is the “least dangerous” branch of government because it “has no influence over either the sword or the purse,” yet it’s trumping the man with the sword, the president. But does it have to be this way?

No, Trump could simply ignore the court ruling suspending his ban.

Outrageous!? Unconstitutional!? Actually, it’s wholly constitutional.

In his dissent from the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges marriage ruling, late Justice Antonin Scalia warned that with “each decision… unabashedly based not on law,” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.” What did Scalia know about courts’ power?

That it’s basically an illusion.

Let’s do a civics quiz. Why does the legislative branch have the power to make law? Why does the executive branch (presidency) have the power to enforce law? The answer in both cases is because the Constitution grants it.

Okay, now how is it that the judiciary has the “power” to rule on law and have its decisions constrain not just its own branch, but the other two as well? How have the courts become king? Because the Constitution grants…no, stop. It’s not in the Constitution—anywhere.

Rather, this “power” was declared by the courts themselves, most notably in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.

That’s right, the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court the supreme power to have the final say on laws’ meaning.

It’s a great con if you can pull it off.

The point is that the judiciary enjoys this power at the executive branch’s pleasure. As soon as the latter says, to paraphrase Andrew Jackson, “The courts have made their decision; now let them enforce it,” that power goes bye-bye. The judiciary is reminded of its impotence.

So it isn’t just that the courts lack the sword or purse, the possession and exercise of which could simply amount to might making right. They also have no constitutional claim to judicial supremacy. In fact, the power is a violation of everything for which America stands.

Jefferson explained why in 1820, writing that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” This is where we are now, and have long been—suicide-pact territory. The will of a nation 320-million strong is expressed through its duly elected representatives and laws are passed….

And then that will is thwarted by five black-robed lawyers in a central-government tribunal.

Does this sound like a government of, by and for the people to you?

As time has worn on, the judiciary has become increasingly brazen, issuing rulings more and more distant from the Constitution. This is no surprise. As Jefferson put it, “Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps.”

They even conjure up rationalizations justifying this power and privilege. For example, they long ago invented, out of thin air, the concept of the Constitution as a “living document” that can be interpreted to “suit the times.” Yet since the interpretations so often conflict with popular will, the only common thread is that they suit the judges.

These esteemed jurists then put a veneer of legitimacy on their violation of law and duty by assigning themselves an intellectual-sounding designation. “Why, we’re not constrained by a 200-year-old piece of parchment like those knuckle-dragging originalists,” they say, “We’re ‘pragmatists’!”

To understand how outrageous this is, consider an analogy touched on by Chief Justice John Roberts when, during his confirmation hearings, he said his job was only “to call balls and strikes.” Expanding on this, judges can in fact be thought of as baseball umpires, while the game’s ruling body is the legislature and the rule book is the Constitution. Now, what if an umpire considered the rule book living and said, “With the great pitchers in these times, three strikes are insufficient; I’m giving the batter four strikes”? What if he then stated, “I’m not abdicating my duty. I’m a pragmatist!”

Would this be taken seriously? Or would he be laughed off the diamond?

Obviously, it’s the job of the ruling body to alter the rules if necessary. Likewise, there is a lawful way to make the Constitution “live”: the Amendment Process. It’s long and difficult, and this ensures that before a change is made, a majority of the people agrees. This brings us to the problem with it—from the judiciary’s perspective:

Judges can’t control it.

So they usurp the people’s power with a wink and a nod. They must be stopped.

There’s more than one way to do this. Another little known fact is that Article III of the Constitution grants Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court and the appellate jurisdiction of the latter. In other words, Congress could simply have prevented federal courts below the SCOTUS from ruling on immigration (and other issues) to begin with and the SCOTUS from reviewing lower-court decisions on those issues.

Congress also has the power under Article III to eliminate any and every federal court, except for the SCOTUS. So it could have made the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—a bench of fools now reviewing Trump’s immigration ban—disappear long ago.

Yet this would require that our cowardly politicians take a real stand on a contentious issue. They’d rather that judges, who don’t have to be re-elected, make the tough decisions. They can then pretend they did all they could and say, “The courts have ruled. The law’s the law!”

So is it any surprise the courts are going rogue? “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” as Lord Acton warned. And how can we have a balance of power among the three governmental branches, as the founders intended, when two branches refuse to exercise their power?

I’ve heard it said that if the president ignored the courts, it would spark a constitutional crisis. Newsflash: When a branch of government is continually trampling the rights of others and violating the Constitution, we’re already in a constitutional crisis. Showing the judiciary its impotence isn’t the disease—it’s the cure.

Only power neutralizes power. It’s shocking how we’ve betrayed the letter and spirit of our nation’s founding and have allowed the courts to run amok. We can continue drinking the judicial-supremacy Kool-Aid and committing national suicide, or we can drain the swamp infested with black-robed tyrants. It’s impotence for them—or irrelevancy for us.

Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show.  His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.

Posted in Justice, Law, Politics | Comments Off on Trump Could Simply Ignore Court’s Order Halting Travel Ban

Well, So Fucking What?

Posted in Liberal Sharia, Thought Control | Comments Off on Well, So Fucking What?

Back To Basics

Posted in Thought Control | Comments Off on Back To Basics

Not Dead Yet

Sorry for the lack of posts, including missing the annual WKRP Thanksgiving episode…Life has a habit of getting in the way. I’m thankful that Hillary lost the election, and I’m willing to give Trump his first 100 days to show me if he really meant what he said throughout the campaign. The first action I’ll be looking for is his nomination to replace Scalia on SCOTUS, and I’ll go from there

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Not Dead Yet

The Obama Era is Over

The Obama Era is Over

Obama and his supporters loved talking about history. His victory was historic. They were on the right side of history. History was an inevitable arc that bent their way.

The tidal force of demographics had made the old America irrelevant. Any progressive policy agenda was now possible because we were no longer America. We Were Obamerica. A hip, happening place full of smiling gay couples, Muslim women in hijabs and transgender actors. We were all going to live in a New York City coffee house and work at Green Jobs and live in the post-national future.

The past was gone. We were falling into the gorgeous wonderful future of dot com instant deliveries and outsourced everything. We would become more tolerant and guilty. The future was Amazon and Disney. It was hot and cold running social justice. The Bill of Rights was done. Ending the First and Second Amendments was just a clever campaign away. Narratives on news sites drove everything.

Presidents were elected by Saturday Night Live skits. John Oliver, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Samantha Bee were our journalists. Safe spaces were everywhere and you better watch your microaggressions, buddy. No more coal would be mined. No more anything would be made. The end of men was here. The end of the dead white men of the literary canon. The end of white people. The end of binary gender and marriage. The end of reason. The end of art. The end of 2 + 2 equaling 4. This was Common Core time. It was time to pardon an endless line of drug dealers. To kill cops and praise criminals. To be forced to buy worthless health insurance for wealth redistribution to those who voted their way to wealth.

This was Obama’s America. And there was no going back. We were rushing through endless goal posts of social transformation. The military fell. Then the police. Now it looks as quaint as anything from the 50s, the 70s or the 80s. A brief moment of foolishness that already appears odd and awkward. And then one day nostalgic. It wasn’t the future. It’s already the past. It’s history.

Scalia died. Hillary Clinton was bound to win. And she would define the Supreme Court. Downticket races would give her a friendly Senate. And then perhaps the House.

But there is no right side of history. There is only the side we choose.

The Obama era was permanent. It was history. Now it is history.

Its shocking ascendancy has been paired with an equally shocking descent. The Obama era is done. It’s gone. It’s over. It was wiped from the pages of history in one night that left Congress and the White House in Republican hands.

It would have been bad enough if Jeb Bush had succeeded Obama. That would have been inconvenient, but not a repudiation. Instead Obama’s legacy was dashed to pieces. His frantic efforts to campaign for Hillary did no good. The public did not vocally reject him. What they did was in its own way even worse. They brushed past him. They sidelined him. They gave him passable approval ratings while dismissing his biggest accomplishments. They forgot him. They made it clear that he did not matter.

And that is in its own way far more brutal and wounding. They didn’t just destroy the Obama era. Instead they dismissed it as if it never existed.

Obama didn’t make history after all. He wasn’t a teleprompter demi-god standing athwart of history. He was Carter and Ford. He was there to be forgotten. He didn’t change the world. He wasn’t the messiah. He was merely mortal. Just another politician who will sag and age. Who will, in the end, be photographed like Bill Clinton, lonely and lost in a world that has passed him by.

The Obama era ends not with a bang, but with a whimper. With a national consensus that maybe he didn’t really matter so much after all. And those to whom he mattered the most were his enemies determined to undo everything he did.

Obama once thought that he belonged to the ages. Now he belongs in the rubbish bin.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on The Obama Era is Over

Is Hillary Guilty?

Posted in Corruption, Justice, Law, Leftism, Politics, Useful Idiots | Comments Off on Is Hillary Guilty?

You Owe Them Nothing – Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience

You Owe Them Nothing – Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience

by Kurt Schlichter

Sometimes in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. It is high time to declare our personal independence from any remnant of obligation to those who have spit upon the rule of law. We owe them nothing – not respect, not loyalty, not obedience.

Think about it. If you are out driving at 3 a.m., do you stop at a stop sign when there’s no one coming? Of course you do. You don’t need a cop to be there to make you stop. You do it voluntarily because this is America and America is a country where obeying the law is the right thing to do because the law was justly made and is justly applied. Or it used to be.

The law mattered. It applied equally to everyone. We demanded that it did, all of us – politicians, the media, and regular citizens. Oh, there were mistakes and miscarriages of justice but they weren’t common and they weren’t celebrated – they were universally reviled. And, more importantly, they weren’t part and parcel of the ideology of one particular party. There was once a time where you could imagine a Democrat scandal where the media actually called for the head of the Democrat instead of deploying to cover it up.

People assumed that the law mattered, that the same rules applied to everyone. That duly enacted laws would be enforced equally until repealed. That the Constitution set the foundation and that its guarantees would be honored even if we disliked the result in a particular case. But that’s not our country today.

The idea of the rule of law today is a lie. There is no law. There is no justice. There are only lies.

Hillary Clinton is manifestly guilty of multiple felonies. Her fans deny it half-heartedly, but mostly out of habit – in the end, it’s fine with them if she’s a felon. They don’t care. It’s just some law. What’s the big deal? It doesn’t matter that anyone else would be in jail right now for doing a fraction of what she did. But the law is not important. Justice is not important.

The attorney general secretly canoodles with the husband of the subject of criminal investigation by her own department and the president, the enforcer of our laws, shrugs. The media, the challenger of the powerful, smirks. They rub our noses in their contempt for the law. And by doing so, demonstrate their contempt for us.

Only power matters, and Hillary stands ready to accumulate more power on their behalf so their oaths, their alleged principles, their duty to the country – all of it goes out the window. But it’s much worse than just one scandal that seems not to scandalize anyone in the elite. Just read the Declaration of Independence – it’s almost like those dead white Christian male proto-NRA members foresaw and cataloged the myriad oppressions of liberalism’s current junior varsity tyranny.

There is one law for them, and another for us. Sanctuary cities? Obama’s immigration orders? If you conservatives can play by the rules and pass your laws, then we liberals will just not enforce them. You don’t get the benefit of the laws you like. We get the benefit of the ones we do, though. Not you. Too bad, rubes.

So if you are still obeying the law when you don’t absolutely have to, when there isn’t some government enforcer with a gun lurking right there to make you, aren’t you kind of a sucker?

Don’t you feel foolish, like you’re the only one who didn’t get the memo that it’s every man/woman/non-binary entity for his/her/its self?

Who is standing against this? Not the judges. The Constitution? Meh. Why should their personal agendas be constrained by some sort of foundational document? Judges find rights that don’t appear in the text and gut ones that do. Just ask a married gay guy in Los Angeles who can’t carry a concealed weapons to protect himself from [OMITTED] radicals.

The politicians won’t stand against this. The Democrats support allowing the government to jail people for criticizing politicians and clamor to take away citizens’ rights merely because some government flunky has put their name on a list. Their “minority report” on Benghazi is an attack on Trump, and to them the idea of congressional oversight of a Democrat official whose incompetence put four Americans in the ground is not merely illegitimate; it’s a joke.

Is the media standing against this, those sainted watchdogs protecting us from the powerful? Don’t make me laugh.

What do these moral abortions have in common? Short term political gain over principle. These people are so used to the good life that a society’s reflexive reliance on the principle of the rule of law brings that they think they can undermine it with impunity. Oh it’s no big deal if we do this, they reason. Everyone else will keep playing by the rules, right? Everything will be fine even as we score in the short term.

The Romans had principles for a while. Then they got tempted to abandon principle for – wait for it – short term political gain. Then they got Caesar. Then the emperors. Then the barbarians. And then the Dark Ages. But hey, we’re much smarter and more sophisticated than the Romans, who were so dumb they didn’t even know that gender is a matter of choice. Our civilization is permanent and indestructible – it’s not like we are threatened by barbarians who want to come massacre us.

Oh, wait. The last words of some of these people to their radical Muslim killers before they are beheaded will be, “Please remember me as not being Islamaphobic! And sorry about the Crusades!”

There used to be a social contract requiring that our government treat us all equally within the scope of the Constitution and defend us, and in return we would recognize the legitimacy of its laws and defend it when in need. But that contract has been breached. We are not all equal before the law. Our constitutional rights are not being upheld. We are not being defended – hell, we normals get blamed every time some Seventh Century savage goes on a kill spree. Yet we’re still supposed to keep going along as if everything is cool, obeying the law, subsidizing the elite with our taxes, taking their abuse. We’ve been evicted by the landlord but he still wants us to pay him rent.

Now it seems we actually have a new social contract – do what we say and don’t resist, and in return we’ll abuse you, lie about you, take your money, and look down upon you in contempt. What a bargain!

It’s not a social contract anymore – American society today is a suicide pact we never agreed to and yet we’re expected to go first.

I say “No.”

We owe them nothing – not respect, not loyalty, not obedience. Nothing.

We make it easy for them by going along. We make it simple by defaulting to the old rules. But there are no rules anymore, certainly none that morally bind us once we are outside the presence of some government worker with a gun to force our compliance. There is only will and power and we must rediscover our own. If there is no cop sitting right there, then there is nothing to make you stop at that stop sign tonight.

They don’t realize that by rejecting the rule of law, they have set us free. We are independent. We owe them nothing – not respect, not loyalty, not obedience. But with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we will still mutually pledge those who have earned our loyalty with their adherence to the rule of law, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Posted in Corruption, Justice, Law, Politics | Comments Off on You Owe Them Nothing – Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience

The Passing Of A Giant, Elie Wiesel, 1928-2016

Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, that turned my life into one long night seven times sealed.
Never shall I forget that smoke.
Never shall I forget the small faces of the children whose bodies I saw transformed into smoke under a silent sky.
Never shall I forget those flames that consumed my faith for ever.
Never shall I forget the nocturnal silence that deprived me for all eternity of the desire to live.
Never shall I forget those moments that murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to ashes.
Never shall I forget those things, even were I condemned to live as long as God Himself.
Never.

Never Shall I Forget from “Night” by Elie Wiesel

THE PASSING OF A GIANT, ELIE WIESEL, 1928-2016

obit-elie-wiesel_horo-e1467493252275-635x357

The world lost a great and indefatigable humanitarian this week with the passing of acclaimed author, journalist, academic and human rights activist Elie Wiesel. He was 87 years old. Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor who endured the notorious death camps of both Auschwitz and Buchenwald, was also a prolific writer who authored some five-dozen books, both fiction and non-fiction, many of which related to social justice, Israel, the Holocaust and Judaism. 

He also spoke out vociferously against world injustices such as Apartheid in South Africa as well as genocides perpetrated against minorities in Rwanda and Darfur and mass slaughter against Yazidis and other ethnic groups in Iraq. He gave voice to the voiceless and represented the conscience of the nation.

In 1985, Wiesel received the Congressional Gold Medal of Achievement, an acclaimed honor and the highest that the Government gives to civilians. At the ceremony, he pleaded with President Ronald Reagan not to lay a wreath at the Bitburg military cemetery, which along with members of the German Wehrmacht, interred some 47 members of Himmler’s notorious SS who spearheaded the Nazi genocide against the Jews as well as other minorities. 

“That place, Mr. President, is not your place,” Wiesel told Reagan at the ceremony. “Your place is with the victims of the SS,” he added. Reagan was visibly moved by Wiesel’s pleas but had scheduled the event not knowing of the presence of the SS. Cold War politics won out and Reagan – who was a strong supporter of Israel – attended the Bitburg ceremony with his German counterpart, Chancellor Helmut Kohl. But he also paid a visit to the infamous Nazi concentration camp of Bergen-Belsen where 16-year old Anne Frank was murdered.  

Wiesel was also an outspoken supporter and tireless defender of the State of Israel. He routinely highlighted the abject hypocrisy of self-styled human rights activists, who reveled in criticism of the Jewish State but were starkly mute when it came to egregious injustices committed elsewhere.

The Holocaust provided Wiesel with perspective and insight that few others possessed and was central to shaping his world outlook. He understood the importance of Israel to the world and to the Jewish people in particular.

His appreciation for the existence of Israel and recognition of its importance and centrality to the Jewish people is personified by one of his famous quotes

“There is Israel, for us at least. What no other generation had, we have. We have Israel in spite of all the dangers, the threats and the wars, we have Israel. We can go to Jerusalem. Generations and generations could not and we can.”

Of course, where there is good in this world there is there is also no shortage of evil and the anti-Semitic trolls, composed of an alliance of Islamo-fascists and radical leftists, immediately came out of the woodwork to launch vitriolic attacks against Wiesel and his great legacy.

Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the hate site Electronic Intifada noted that, “Elie Wiesel will be remembered by Palestinians for his racism and his propaganda services to their oppressors, ethnic cleansers and killers.”

Iranian-American Reza Aslan, who is considered by some in the mainstream to be the “moderate” voice of Islam and is a frequent guest commentator on various news outlets, implied on his Twitter feed that Wiesel was a liar.

And of course, no Judeophobic tirade would be complete without the voice of the notorious anti-Semite Max Blumenthal, son of Hillary Clinton’s closest adviser, Sidney Blumenthal. Blumenthal’s Twitter rant includes the following gem: “Elie Wiesel went from a victim of war crimes to a supporter of those who commit them. He did more harm than good and should not be honored.” It should be noted that should Clinton win the general election, the rancid Max Blumenthal will be just one degree of separation from access to the White House, something one should bear in mind before pulling the lever on Election Day.

Surprisingly, Wiesel won praise from Bahrain’s minister of foreign affairs, Khalid Bin Ahmad, who noted on his Twitter feed, “Rest in peace #ElieWiesel. Your noble legacy will survive.” He also re-tweeted several flattering comments including those of House Speaker, Paul Ryan.

Khalid Bin Ahmad’s comments could be a reflection of the growing warming of ties between Israel and the Gulf States or they may reflect genuine expressions of admiration or perhaps a combination of both. Either way, it demonstrates the positive impact Wiesel made on the global stage.

With Wiesel’s passing, the world has lost a giant among giants, a true voice of morality in a sea of immorality. He will be sorely missed, but his legacy will live on.  

Posted in History, Israel | Comments Off on The Passing Of A Giant, Elie Wiesel, 1928-2016

How To Save Your Civilization From Islam

How to save your civilization from Islam

What is the difference between a Muslim who applies henna to his beard and a Muslim who beheads someone for rejecting Islam?

Answer: There is no difference. Both are following the example of the behavior of Muhammad — his sunna.

This is an important word, because it is where the Sunnis take their name. The Sunnis, who make up 90 percent of all Muslims, declare by their name that they are the followers of the ways of Muhammad, his behavior in all areas of his life. The Shias also follow the ways of Muhammad, as do Muslims from all the minor sects.

The imitation of Muhammad could be as innocuous as wearing a full beard and applying orange coloration by dyeing it with henna, or stepping into a mosque with the right foot, but stepping out of it on the left foot. It is recorded that Muhammad did such things. Because Muhammad did it, imitating him is a way of racking up points with Allah. Thus it is also considered praiseworthy to eat with two fingers and lick them three times after a meal, and triply praiseworthy to lick three fingers three times. And much more. A book held in great esteem by Muslims is the Shamail by Tirmizi, which gives an account of Muhammad’s mannerisms, habits, and physical characteristics. Osama bin Laden was known to model his mannerisms and habits by imitating what is found about Muhammad in the Shamail.

Muhammad also gave the example of horrific barbarity. His biography is a chronicle of assassinations, mass murder, genocide, plunder, and the enslavement of men, women, and children — all against people who refused to accept him as “the last and final prophet,” as he claimed about himself. Osama bin Laden followed Muhammad’s example of mass murder, and it cost 3,000 people their lives on Sept. 11, 2001.

If Muslims were to limit their imitation of Muhammad to brushing their teeth the way he did, Islam might have a legitimate place in the non-Muslim world. But Muslims cannot pick and choose. Once they believe that he was the “Messenger of God” — the affirmation of faith contained in the shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith — they are declaring their faith that everything he did was good because it was in furtherance of God’s cause — including his violence against people who rejected him.

Muhammad’s body turned to dust nearly 1,400 years ago, but his spirit lives on in his Koran, which contains numerous incitements to violence against people who rejected what he created, and in the example of his behavior — his sunna. Every time suicide bombers blow themselves up, killing other people along with them, there is Muhammad. When the 9/11 hijackers slammed their passenger airplanes into buildings, there was Muhammad in the cockpit with them. Only recently, as more than 100 people fell to the bullets of a Muslim who walked into a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and opened fire, the spirit of Muhammad hovered in the background, nodding with approval.

The saying, “Know your enemy,” is attributed to Sun Tzu, the 6th century BC Chinese military strategist and author of The Art of War. If you don’t understand your enemy, but your enemy understands you, you lose. Islam understands the West, but the West does not understand Islam. The proof is that the West allows not just immigration from Muslim countries, but massive immigration of people who are committed to bringing about a world dominated by Islam. That is what Islam aspires to do because that is what Muhammad commanded it to do and showed how to do it by his example, his sunna.

Sun Tzu also said that all warfare is based on deception. Muhammad knew this and said the same to his followers. This is the practice as Islam spreads in the West: Show a friendly smile, insist that Islam is a religion of peace, but lay the groundwork to take over.

In the West some feeble efforts have begun to deal with Islam, such as banning the wearing of burkas and hijabs in public or limiting the height of minarets. These measures would be laughable if they weren’t such chilling evidence of ignorance about Islam.

The only way to save your family, your country, and your civilization from Islam is to get rid of it, but most people still have a long way to go before understanding that this must be done. It took Europe centuries of suffering Muslim predations before it finally organized crusades against Islam, ultimately pushing it back and containing it. Today, the non-Muslim world does not have the luxury of waiting centuries to defend itself.

It is important to consider critical mass in the formation of political will to take action. Without a critical mass of citizens who understand that Islam is their implacable enemy, and that it is implacable because it is founded on the behavior of Muhammad, his sunna, meaningful action will never be taken against it. At best, the wearing of hijabs in public will be forbidden and minarets will be restricted to a certain height. Critical mass can be achieved when those who have taken the trouble to understand that Islam is all about Muhammad teach what they know to others, and thus the knowledge spreads, and if this process is pursued aggressively, critical mass will eventually be achieved. The political will to take meaningful action will be there.

The burden for this is on the shoulders of those who have already become enlightened. In its perverse way, Islam is a helpmate in this, for every mass murder event such as the one in Florida encourages more people to understand what is behind it. Be there with the answers.

This process of education would accelerate if enlightened people who also happen to possess financial resources step into producer shoes and develop movies depicting Muhammad – films that show this “Messenger of God” committing the atrocities that are attributed to him in Islam’s own literature.

ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all their permutations are only the face of the enemy. Your real enemy is the man who inspires them. Your enemy is Muhammad.

Islam can never be anything but what it has shown itself to be over the last 1,400 years because it’s all about Muhammad. Spread the grotesque truth about him in every manner possible, do so aggressively, relentlessly, and unapologetically to bring about a critical mass of aware people, and you will save your country and preserve your civilization.

+++++++++++++++

This version of this article was first published by American Thinker on June 16, 2016. It may be reproduced in whole or in part provided the following attribution is given: Article by F. W. Burleigh, author of It’s All About Muhammad, a Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet. www.itsallaboutmuhammad.com

Posted in Dhimmitude, Eurabia, History, Islam, Middle East, Religion | Comments Off on How To Save Your Civilization From Islam

The Video “Three Things About Islam”

Posted in Dhimmitude, Eurabia, Islam, Religion | Comments Off on The Video “Three Things About Islam”