On dealing with a part of the Immigration Problem
May 23, 2010
Let’s just look at what might effectively solve just a part of the immigration (invasion) problem in this country. This will deal with only a single aspect (source) of the problem, though there is little doubt that with a bit of modification, it can be applied much more broadly.
This is the result of a conversation with a friend (whom I have done a number of interviews with, in the past, but did not have my tape recorder set up for the interview, this time). The question was, is there a way to deal with the proliferation of Muslims in this country, without the government playing footsy and political correctness — which has resulted more in encouragement than discouragement?
Well, first, to identify the problem. Islam is a religion. It is also very political in its application, since the requirement for Sharia Law is as much a part of it as prayer rugs. True, some do not practice Sharia, though you can never know if that is simply an accommodation to the host (the American People), or is ignored to provide cover for their true beliefs.
As far as true beliefs, from all that I can find on the subject, and, this dates back to Marco Polo’s writings, an infidel was one who has not accepted the faith. An infidel can be lied to; he can be stolen from; he can be enslaved; and, he can be killed without remorse. Well, if he can be lied to, then how can we possibly know whether any Muslim believes in Sharia, or not.
Understanding what the religion has been known for, for at least 750 years, it is probably safe to assume that we can judge Islam to be more than a religion; that we can judge it to be a way of life, government, and, morality, that is contrary, in all three aspects, to that which is the culture of America.
That being the case, we must consider whether it is, ultimately, destructive of our own culture to welcome, with open arms, what professes to be a religion, though it carries baggage inherent to it that is destructive to any other religion. If it is simply a matter conversion, or its purpose is to force its beliefs upon the host who is foolish enough to not protect its own household.
So, we shall proceed on the assumption that it is a worse case and that the goal of Islam in the United States is the forced conversion, or, if necessary, the disposal, or subjugation, of all infidels. To assume any less severe a possibility may be destructive to our nation and our way of life, and, with that in mind, we must proceed under the worst-case scenario.
Where to start? Well, ascending order might be best. First, we need to identify the potential enemy. That, to a great extent, the government has already done, but, at best, they keep that information to themselves, to the extent of denying us the privilege of know just how many Muslims there are, in this country, including illegal, visa guests, work or student visas, and those who have obtained citizenship by birth (anchor) or naturalization.
In that order, we should find each of those who fall within the category of practicing Muslims, or any absence of an indication of having renouncing Islam.
Once identified, an anonymous letter should be delivered to them providing them fair warning that they have, in the case of all but those with citizenship, until July 4, 2010 to settle their affairs and remove themselves from this country. Failure to do so may result in them being treated as infidels, and enemies, who have invaded our country.
Those who have attained the status of citizen should be provided the same warning, though having established themselves on a more permanent basis, must exit by July 4, 2011.
So, what happens on July 5, 2010? Well, a good start would be the destruction of property, including owned businesses, absent the citizenship. But, how do you know if the person is a citizen, or not? A call from a pay phone, ask them, and if they claim that they are citizens, taking their word for it (we are honorable, though they have no qualms about lying to us). This will give them 365 more days to settle their affairs.
Those that are not citizens are, well, open game for destruction of property, life, or limb. Much like the Vigilantes did in San Francisco (along with many other instances in our history), when the law refuses to enforce the law, then it is the obligation of the people to uphold the law. However, when the people are forced into that capacity, the luxuries of trial by jury, and other amenities, are not safely, or readily, available. (Daniel Pearl was otherwise innocent (he was an infidel)) . The action must be taken in such a frequency as to bring the awareness of the severity of the situation to the forefront. In the long run, a massive commencement of such activity will provide sufficient warning to those not directly impacted by these actions to realize that they are, until such time as they settle up and remove themselves, subject to the same retribution.
There is another aspect that warrants our consideration, as well. That would be their houses of worship (and administers of Sharia Law). It is evident that a Mosque will not entertain its worshippers with a query as to whether they are here legally, or not; whether they have a visa, or not; or whether they are citizens, or not. Suffice it to say the destruction of such potentially threatening institutions will be seen as a word to the wise, with regard to the sincerity of our demands.
Understand that the conversation had a lot more detail, but it is nothing that you couldn’t figure out, yourselves.
Once again, thanks to my friend John for a lively discussion.