Favourite to be next Dutch PM vows to BAN the Koran and CLOSE all mosques

[unknown]

Favourite to be next Dutch PM vows to BAN the Koran and CLOSE all mosques

THE front-runner to become the next Dutch Prime Minister has vowed to ban the Koran and to close all mosques in the country.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/704172/Geert-Wilders-Islam-religion-Muslim-Koran-PVV-Dutch-Freedom-Party

Tom Parfitt 
Aug 26, 2016

Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), called for the total "de-Islamification" in a controversial manifesto posted online.

The far-right MP, who has previously compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, also vowed to put an end to immigration from Islamic countries.

He would also close all Islamic schools and asylum centres, and ban Muslim women from wearing the headscarf in public, if elected prime minister next year.

{.. snip .. }

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

American left goes ballistic in 3,2,1, . . .

"WAAAAYCISM"

(despite the fact that Islam is a belief system, not a race)




Thx to everyone who downloaded my books. Hope you'll enjoy them.
http://wulfanson.blogspot.com

[ABX]

The Left and Right should both have a problem with this.

First of all, a government should not have the power to ban a belief, no matter how vile it is. Anyone should have the right to believe what they want- it is how they apply that belief, if it infringes on some else's rights, then that application or action of the belief is what should be addressed, not having a belief.

Second, well, I shouldn't have to mention the problem one should have with banning books- no matter how much you disagree or dangerous it may be. As we've seen through history, the most dangerous book is the one that is banned, because then you give it even more power- the power against authority.


Wilders, like LePen and Farage should be a clear reflection of the difference between the political right in the EU and US. They are very distinct in many ways even if they cross over on some issues..

[unknown]

American left goes ballistic in 3,2,1, . . .

"WAAAAYCISM"

(despite the fact that Islam is a belief system, not a race)

Very few people get this point. Which really isn't subtle at all, but nevertheless, for the low-info emotional only types, they don't get it.

[Fishrrman]

"Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), called for the total "de-Islamification" in a controversial manifesto posted online."

Geert Wilders is the closest thing to a Winston Churchill the Dutch people (and much of the rest of Western Europeans) have.

He has stood tall against islam.
There is nothing more I would like to see than him as the next PM of the Netherlands.

I agree with everything he says, and sometimes I wish he would "go further".

I was one of the first to use the term "deislamification" and I'm pleased that he's now using the same term, as well.

To save Europe, it must be deislamicized just as Germany was "de-Nazified" after World War II.

If that means returning entire populations of muslims back to dar al-islam, so be it.

There can be no moderation, no "compromise" with islam or with muslims in The West.
This is not our choice -- it is THEIRS.
Ok, so be it.
If they can't live with Western freedoms and values....
... let them live somewhere ELSE, other than The West.

Call me a xenophobe or a racis' if you wish - water off the duck's back to me.

[unknown]

"Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), called for the total "de-Islamification" in a controversial manifesto posted online."

Geert Wilders is the closest thing to a Winston Churchill the Dutch people (and much of the rest of Western Europeans) have.

He has stood tall against islam.
There is nothing more I would like to see than him as the next PM of the Netherlands.

I agree with everything he says, and sometimes I wish he would "go further".

I was one of the first to use the term "deislamification" and I'm pleased that he's now using the same term, as well.

To save Europe, it must be deislamicized just as Germany was "de-Nazified" after World War II.

If that means returning entire populations of muslims back to dar al-islam, so be it.

There can be no moderation, no "compromise" with islam or with muslims in The West.
This is not our choice -- it is THEIRS.
Ok, so be it.
If they can't live with Western freedoms and values....
... let them live somewhere ELSE, other than The West.

Call me a xenophobe or a racis' if you wish - water off the duck's back to me.

I have come to the point where I agree. After watching their celebrations here in America after 9-11, I realized their ultimate goal is the destruction of America, NOT assimilation. Ship them out, and don't let anymore in.

[dfwgator]

Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization, just as Japanese Shintoism and Nazism. 

[unknown]

Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization, just as Japanese Shintoism and Nazism.

Yes, but nobody knows this. People know this regarding Nazism. Are people waking up about Islam? I don't think so.

[Fishrrman]

Unlimited wrote above:
"While I'd like to see us do something to stop the influx of Muslim immigration into this country or at least slow it down, the First Amendment to the Constitution that some may find pesky is near and dear to my heart."

Would you support changing this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

To this?:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."

[unknown]

Unlimited wrote above:
"While I'd like to see us do something to stop the influx of Muslim immigration into this country or at least slow it down, the First Amendment to the Constitution that some may find pesky is near and dear to my heart."

Would you support changing this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

To this?:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."

Yea, works for me.

I would also add at the end.

"And this, because Islam is not a religion but a political structure as defined with Sharia Law and it's ultimate goal the overthrow of the Constitution and the United States of America."

[dfwgator]

That pretty much defeats the point of the First Amendment, doesn't it?  Once exceptions are made, the door is open to "Except followers of Jesus" or "Members of the following organizations: yada, yada, yada."

I prefer not to open that door.

Well when they're about to cut off your head, you can wave your copy of The Constitution at them.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

If the 1st Amendment or ANY of our Bill of Rights were anything more than an Empty Platitude in America, arguing the issue on 1st Amendment grounds would make sense. But it's a red herring on this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance

Unless you can afford to argue a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights all the way to the Supreme Court, you are SOL in real terms. Our Court system, where the rubber meets the road, will refuse to consider the issue.

So the 1st Amendment does not need to be Modified to support this Dutch PM's position without being hypocrites in our own eyes.

http://pamelageller.com/2015/07/saudi-prince-pledges-billions-to-promote-islamsharia-in-america.html/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html

Bringing Sharia Law into our country and establishing it in segregated enclaves needs to be addressed as Treason (if we still Had a Constitution) or as lesser Non Constituional felonies such as Conspiracy to commit Murder, because it seeks the Overthrow of our government through deception and violence to impose of its own.

I Don't Care if they Believe in their book.

I DO care that they castrate women and girls, toss homosexuals off of tall buildings, amputate the hands of thieves, burn suspected apostates and spies alive in public and post videos of it on youtube.

Our 1st Amendment doesn't need to be amended. It's already been revoked. It needs to be made the law of the land again, not subjected to yet another full frontal assault by a Sharia 5th Column.




http://wulfanson.blogspot.com
Thx to all who downloaded my books. I hope you'll enjoy them.

[ABX]

Well when they're about to cut off your head, you can wave your copy of The Constitution at them.

The Constitution provides protections from that without having to change the First Amendment, it is called the Second Amendment.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

The Constitution provides protections from that without having to change the First Amendment, it is called the Second Amendment.

On paper, yes. In real life, No.

If you're referring to the 8th Amendment, IT'S ALREADY BEEN REVOKED!

You CANNOT ENFORCE IT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance

[sneakypete]

The Left and Right should both have a problem with this.


@AbaraXas


I not only have no problem at all with it,I applaud it.


First of all, a government should not have the power to ban a belief, no matter how vile it is.<<

I see. I guess tje descendants ofMexicans living in America can bring back the sacrifice of virgins,the descendants of Africans can bring back cannibalism,etc,etc,etc,and that would be just peachy-keen with you?

,..Anyone should have the right to believe what they want- it is how they apply that belief, if it infringes on some else's rights, then that application or action of the belief is what should be addressed, not having a belief.<<

You/we are all free to believe any damn-fool thing we want to believe. What none of us have is the right to dictate that others follow our personal moral or religious beliefs if those beliefs interfere with our ability to live free and make our own decisions.

Islam is NOT a religion. It is a form of dictatorial government.

>>Second, well, I shouldn't have to mention the problem one should have with banning books- no matter how much you disagree or dangerous it may be. As we've seen through history, the most dangerous book is the one that is banned, because then you give it even more power- the power against authority.<<


There will be no need to ban The Koran once we ban it's users. Or more correctly,the people that have it read to them.

[sneakypete]

American left goes ballistic in 3,2,1, . . .

"WAAAAYCISM"

(despite the fact that Islam is a belief system, not a race)


Thx to everyone who downloaded my books. Hope you'll enjoy them.
http://wulfanson.blogspot.com

@To-Whose-Benefit?

Wrong! It is a POLITICAL SYSTEM/DICTATORIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT,NOT a belief system.

Calling it a belief system is EXACTLY like declaring Nazism or Slavery to be belief systems/religions.

[sneakypete]

"Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), called for the total "de-Islamification" in a controversial manifesto posted online."

Geert Wilders is the closest thing to a Winston Churchill the Dutch people (and much of the rest of Western Europeans) have.

He has stood tall against islam.
There is nothing more I would like to see than him as the next PM of the Netherlands.

I agree with everything he says, and sometimes I wish he would "go further".

I was one of the first to use the term "deislamification" and I'm pleased that he's now using the same term, as well.

To save Europe, it must be deislamicized just as Germany was "de-Nazified" after World War II.

If that means returning entire populations of muslims back to dar al-islam, so be it.

There can be no moderation, no "compromise" with islam or with muslims in The West.
This is not our choice -- it is THEIRS.
Ok, so be it.
If they can't live with Western freedoms and values....
... let them live somewhere ELSE, other than The West.

Call me a xenophobe or a racis' if you wish - water off the duck's back to me.

@Fishrrman

BINGO!

BTW,Islam isn't a race or even a nationality.

[TomSea]

Investigate it for oneself, is Islam a religion as we want freedom of religion, hypothetically, even to those who worship under the pentagram as repugnant as that is or is Islam really a theocracy, governmental system and so on.

Maybe there have been Christian Republics, but I know we have 2 key countries in the world that are Islamic Republics, Iran and Saudi Arabian It seems the goal of Islam to make all countries like that though in the end, those 2, they are at loggerheads against each other.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@To-Whose-Benefit?

Wrong! It is a POLITICAL SYSTEM/DICTATORIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT,NOT a belief system.

Calling it a belief system is EXACTLY like declaring Nazism or Slavery to be belief systems/religions.

I get your point.

I also believe that you and I are on the same page since political systems/dictatorial forms of government originate in the Belief that they are what's right and correct, at least in the beginning, and later on through the accretion of power, at least in the Minds of those running them.

Look at the popularity of the hit movie 'The 300' about the Spartan's last stand at Thermopylae.

How many of the film's fans knew anything about Sparta beyond the film's Death Before Dishonor message?

Sparta itself was one of the most repressive, eugenic, totalitarian horrors ever seen.


https://youtu.be/L6Io27IdufQ

Was this society built on science, or Belief?

Nazism?

Hitler didn't seize power in a military coup. He was elected because the German people believed he was the only man strong enough to save them.

Slavery?

The Northern Democrats, called Copperheads, opposed Lincoln by advancing the theory/Belief of Slavery being a Positive Good both for Slaves and Masters.

[Sanguine]

While I'd like to see us do something to stop the influx of Muslim immigration into this country or at least slow it down, the First Amendment to the Constitution that some may find pesky is near and dear to my heart.

If you restrict the definition of Islam to a religion, I can see where you would have this conflict.  However, that is not what Islam is - it is a political and legal system as much as it is a religion.  And, one that is antithetical to republicanism or anything else that is regarded as more important than sharia.