A message to our Leadership in America

[denuseri]

This is a copy of an email I got from my friend supposabely written by a woman in Arizona .

She writes an open letter to our nation's leadership:

"I am a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. Instead, we are burdened with Congressional Dukes and Duchesses who think they know better than the citizens they are supposed to represent.

There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now.
You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would feel so horribly disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut-job am I? Well, these briefly are the views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This is not to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the STIMULUS bill. I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars. I want the circumvention of our constitutional checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution, and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There are many conflicting opinions and it is too soon for this radical legislation. Quit throwing our nation into politically-correct quicksand.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision that will burden me, my children and grandchildren. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night without even reading it. Slow down! Fix only what is broken -- we have the best health care system in the world -- and test any new program in one or two states first.

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. More is not better! Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real [Constitutional] obligations. Why don't you start there?

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes -- how did they pull that one off? Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with any of our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs -- and that is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person! Why do you want me to hate my employers? And what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Every company must sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. (Have you ever ripped off a Band-Aid?) We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please stop trying to manipulate and appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now. Take a breath. Listen to the people. Slow down and get some input from non-politicians and experts on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed-reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children? We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is needless urgency and recklessness in all of your recent spending of our tax dollars.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on bringing our concerns to Washington . Our president often knows all the right buzzwords like unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work, pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone... and we are now looking at you.

You have awakened us, the patriotic freedom spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office.

We have canceled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us who will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution, and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them... Because we will get you fired and they will not save you.

If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming.

We the people are coming."

[Wiscoman]

Reads like a wingnut laundry list.

[denuseri]

Perhaps, but somthing about it also rings all too true.

[IAN 2411]

Reads like a wingnut laundry list.

I dont know much about American Politics, but denuseri has hit the nail on the head, because she is echoing what i have been thinking and talking about in British politics. I might add also that it is a very good and to the point list. Our leaders in UK and in the name of their party and to boost their own ego, and not the man on the street; have been giving away the rights of the UK to Europe for too long. There will be a change this year when the crackpots will be ousted and others take their place. The new UK government might not be able to do a lot, but i think that the can do no worse than the clowns that are in now that i never voted for. Just about everything that denuseri has nailed down in her post is happening in the UK, we now have a black hole in our finances of Billions, and it is all due to miss-management. I also believe we give £45 million pounds away each week to Europe in taxes, well that says it all, the UK is up to its eyeballs in debt and we are paying to be in a Europe that most people now would vote out of. It will happen when the UK has a government with some balls, that it gives the people back their rights to speak. Our National Health Service that was once the best in the world and paid for by the people in taxes, has been in decline for the same amount of time this party of Labour lunatics have been in Parltment. Bailing out companies with the tax payers money is wrong, as denuseri says let them rise and fall by their own management or miss-management. Gordon Brown was not voted Primeminister by the majority of people, he should be up in Scotland looking after his own country, not down here in England fucking up mine.

Regards ian 2411

[steelish]

Reads like a wingnut laundry list.

I guess I'm a wingnut. I agree wholeheartedly with just about every single thing in the letter.

We used to be a nation of hard workers that took pride in our own merit. Now we seem to be turning into a nation of people that embrace the idea that we need the government to make us happy; that somehow, they have the magic formula.

[TwistedTails]

Wingnuts are devices that secure the smaller parts of a larger whole together, and by design they work in the simplest, most straight forward manner. American politics could use more wingnuts.

Cheers
Twisted.

[steelish]

Wingnuts are devices that secure the smaller parts of a larger whole together, and by design they work in the simplest, most straight forward manner. American politics could use more wingnuts.

Cheers
Twisted.

Oh, and I completely took it as a compliment!

[MMI]

Wingnuts ... work in the simplest, most straight forward manner ...

Twisting.

ian ... don't you like being a Scottish colony? Ah well ... now you know how the Scots have felt since 1707. Not nice, is it?

Well, like many other nations, the USA has a two party system, one to the right of the political spectrum, and the other, further to the right. It is not conceivable that either of them can reflect everyone's political viewpoints , in fact, it is not likely that they can reflect anyone's viewpoint exactly. I guess you just have to accept the system is imperfect and your choices are, trying to make changes within the system - by voting for the candidate whose policies you are closest to - or by starting a revolution. As the writer of the above list of policy changes / law amendments presented most of them with the words "I [do not] want ...", I recommend revolution: allowing other people a vote would be too dangerous.

Constitution as it was written? Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Next you'll be saying it's the word of God! That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics. So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.

[IAN 2411]

MMI,
My father was Scottish and the Scotsman is a very strange person, and with some very outdated ideas. The Scots asked for their own parliament and we the English obliged, on doing so I feel that it is only right that there should be no Scots in high places of office in the English parliament. They have the right in Scotland to make their own laws, and they have their own Scottish £, I believe that he was sent down to England as a saboteur, and quite frankly he has been very good at that. I believe also that he has been more dangerous than Guy Fawkes, and as a punishment he should be locked in the Bank of England during the day counting the gold bars that are left and polishing them, the ones that he not has given away to other countries i.e.: - Europe, and it should be for the rest of his un-natural life. Then in the evening they could give him a mop, and he could clean the dirty hospitals, the ones that he has neglected to bring to book while he and his creepy mate Blaire were in charge of the English parliament. I would also like to add that Blaire is another Jock, and as such he should suffer the same fate. Long live the English revolution, LoL.

Regards ian 2411

[steelish]

That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics.

Yes, it is. Life has changed only in the fact that technology has changed it. Basic principles remain the same.

So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.

On the first part of this statement, I disagree. The Constitution doesn't need to change at all. It still applies.

As to "The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being." So true. But their power is quickly going to come to an end.

[SadisticNature]

Any document with a political process for amendments isn't really a protection at all. Ask any former slave owner about their constitutionally protected property and the lack of compensation (except you can't because they are dead).

If in 2240 America's demographics are dominated by Islam and they elect a majority in the house, senate and control the presidency, do you think a piece of paper is going to stop a constitutional amendment imposing sharia law?

The Treaty of Troyes did nothing to stop Valois from taking the throne of France from Plantagenet. That was a flimsy paper shield too.

As for the letter, I'm perhaps not as familiar with US politics as I should be, but to me I don't see how that person finds the republicans unappealing?

Is that points 3 and 9 through 12?

I think America would improve greatly if they had a Constitutional amendment protecting its citizens from pork spending.

[MMI]

Constitution as it was written? Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Next you'll be saying it's the word of God! That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics. So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.

On the first part of this statement, I disagree. The Constitution doesn't need to change at all. It still applies.

I take it, then, that you consider the right of free speech and freedom of assembly are unconstitutional, as is freedom of religion and of the press, not to mention the right to bear arms or women's suffrage.

[denuseri]

Amendments are considered to be part of the constitution once approved by the prescribed proccess.

[steelish]

I take it, then, that you consider the right of free speech and freedom of assembly are unconstitutional, as is freedom of religion and of the press, not to mention the right to bear arms or women's suffrage.

As denu said, Amendments are part of the constitution once approved. Also - amendments that support freedom are a good thing, such as the amendments you mention.

[steelish]

[QUOTE=SadisticNature;836633I think America would improve greatly if they had a Constitutional amendment protecting its citizens from pork spending.[/QUOTE]

Now THAT would help! (But it would be considered unconstitutional, so it will never happen)

[steelish]

If in 2240 America's demographics are dominated by Islam and they elect a majority in the house, senate and control the presidency, do you think a piece of paper is going to stop a constitutional amendment imposing sharia law?

I won't be around in 2240, but I would hope that the people of Islam faith that are born and raised American citizens would respect the Constitution enough to follow it.

[Bren122]

Yes, it is. Life has changed only in the fact that technology has changed it. Basic principles remain the same.

Technology brings about changes in human attitudes; the widespread use of the clock made us more concerned with the passage of time. The invention of the deep sowing plough and the shoulder yoke changed the way we used agriculture; similarly the development of fertilisers and pesticides. this is not just a way of doing things but a way of thinking about things; something that we all seem to have forgotten in the last century.
The constitution has a procedure for its own amendment precisely because it was seen that what was known and thought necessary in the 18th century might be very different in the 21st century.

[Bren122]

That was a flimsy paper shield too.

When Sir Edward Grey informed the German Ambassador of the conditions Germany had to accept in order for Britain to stay out of World War One, the German Ambassador replied that "[You] are going to war over a piece of paper."
it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"
It is why a Bill of Rights is a limiting document; it sets out those elements that seem so important today but "in the future some fool will be of the belief that we are seeking to define the limits of freedom."
The post-modernist trendies of the left want to redraw the political landscape by modernising or introducing a Bill of Rights that set out the individual's obligations to the state and its members while doing away with those freedoms of choice that are inconvenient to the state. Such a document, far from reflecting the Rights of Man, are seeking to proscribe the model citizen and turning government from the servant of the people into the arbitor of the common good.

[steelish]

it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"

I could not have said it better. I think most people who do not live in the states and even some who do, fail to understand this. Our pride and sense of ownership as a U.S. citizen is being threatened by the very politicians who we (as a whole) elected to keep our nation great. I think this is what is most disappointing. A few bad apples in a barrel is understandable, but when almost the entire barrel is bad, it's crushing.

[denuseri]

Apparently as some have pointed out the feeling is perhaps more universal with politicans everywhere.

But then again, hasnt it been a common theme with politicans all throughout history at one time or another?

Look at what Xenophon wrote about Tyrants and politics way back in ancient Greece.

[steelish]

denu, the ONLY politicians I know of who were not interested in complete power were the founding fathers of our country. Once they served, they went back to their homes/farms and then it was someone else's turn to serve for their country.

Serving as a politician in the United States should carry the same amount of pride for doing it as serving in one of the armed forces. Our government was not originally designed to be full of career positions. People were supposed to step up to the plate, serve for one term, then go back home to life as it was. Politics in the US has become a joke.

We all know politicians say what they think their constituents want to hear in order to get elected. Case in point; Nancy Pelosi laughing and admitting to that very thing!

[MMI]

As denu said, Amendments are part of the constitution once approved. Also - amendments that support freedom are a good thing, such as the amendments you mention.

I guess that's right, and I for one have no quarrel with it. However, an amended consitution is not the constitution "as written", which is what the twisted wingnut who wrote the diatribe against your government at the top of this thread said, but, obviously, didn't mean.

The post-modernist trendies of the left want to redraw the political landscape by modernising or introducing a Bill of Rights that set out the individual's obligations to the state and its members while doing away with those freedoms of choice that are inconvenient to the state. Such a document, far from reflecting the Rights of Man, are seeking to proscribe the model citizen and turning government from the servant of the people into the arbitor of the common good.

I suppose a right-winger would say that, wouldn't he?

A few bad apples in a barrel is understandable, but when almost the entire barrel is bad, it's crushing.

When there are only a few fresh apples left in the barrel, they have lost control of the barrel, and it now belongs to the ripe ones. Thus, from colonies to republic and from republic to an Islamic society founded on justice and benevolence if the people so wish, and no piece of paper can stop that.

Now, where's that cider?

[IAN 2411]

If in 2240 America's demographics are dominated by Islam and they elect a majority in the house, senate and control the presidency, do you think a piece of paper is going to stop a constitutional amendment imposing sharia law

I won't be around in 2240, but I would hope that the people of Islam faith that are born and raised American citizens would respect the Constitution enough to follow it.

In England I think there is only one minister in parliament that practices Islam, but that has not stopped the people that are born of Islam faith practicing and imposing Shari law in the UK in certain comunities. I would also think that if it can happen in a small country such as mine, I am in no doubt the it is probably happening in the USA in secret. The British authorities have tried to stamp out the practice, because it goes against the UKs basic laws, but I am afraid the people born of the Islam Faith have little or no respect for any ones laws but their own. I am also afraid to say that not all but most living in the free world, think that they are the chosen people, and have been openly sticking their fingers up at government’s, both American and the UKs since 9/11. Just by looking at the UK news every night, the Islam people are causing so much unrest, that before long in the UK they will end up being victimised. As SadisticNature has pointed out, to Islam your Constitution is for Americans and not them, because they are only Americans and English when it is convenient for them, it is sad but true.

[Bren122]

I suppose a right-winger would say that, wouldn't he?

How many right wingers do you know who are interested in introducing a bill of rights where those rights are not going to be determined by the people in a referendum but by the courts or a parliamentary majority? All these movements want to achieve is to lock in a left winger's view of the world as the only viable negotiating position. look at the Bill of Rights in Victoria, Australia- far from guaranteeing that most fundamental right, freedom of religion, it has in fact been used to over ride religious objections to abortions and was going to be used to override hiring practices in religious schools.

[MMI]

It seems to me that all legislation by the British Parliament regarding fundamental rights give the power to determine the meaning of those laws to the Secretary of State or the courts, and, occasionally, to a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation or the like. None of them, so far as I am aware, depends upon a plebicite. This applies to Conservative government legislation as well as to Labour government laws, so I think I can say, in answer to your question, All of them.

Referenda here happen as often as ducks' teeth fall out, but when they do take place, they have no binding force: the government is free to ignore the will of the people if it wishes. I can imagine that many Conservative politicians would be comfortable with that.

[MMI]

In England I think there is only one minister in parliament that practices Islam, but that has not stopped the people that are born of Islam faith practicing and imposing Shari law in the UK in certain comunities. I would also think that if it can happen in a small country such as mine, I am in no doubt the it is probably happening in the USA in secret. The British authorities have tried to stamp out the practice, because it goes against the UKs basic laws, but I am afraid the people born of the Islam Faith have little or no respect for any ones laws but their own. I am also afraid to say that not all but most living in the free world, think that they are the chosen people, and have been openly sticking their fingers up at government’s, both American and the UKs since 9/11. Just by looking at the UK news every night, the Islam people are causing so much unrest, that before long in the UK they will end up being victimised. As SadisticNature has pointed out, to Islam your Constitution is for Americans and not them, because they are only Americans and English when it is convenient for them, it is sad but true.

As a matter of fact, ian, the British authorities see this as a positive development and are happy to see tribunals set up to resolve disputes between members of ethnic/cultural groups in a manner that is acceptable to those traditions. "Legal pluralism" is a concomitant part of a multi-cultural society and goes a long way to maintaining harmony, whereas a decision by a normal court would impose an "English" solution to the problem, and alienation could result. There are "courts" of this type serving the Somali, Islamic and Jewish communities at least; there are probably others I am not aware of based on different traditions. I would add that the British government rejects any attempt by these tribunals to decide matters relating to the criminal law.

If you are having difficulty with this idea, perhaps you should consider the various jurisdictions within the United Kingom: there is English Law, Scottish Law and Northern Irish Law; or the USA where there are 50 different legal systems (actually, there are more, if you count the hundreds of Indian reservations, and the overseas territories). People living within those jurisdictions can regulate their affairs according to their own customs and cultures, and there is no danger of disrupting the nation as a whole.

I suggest that the Islamic people you refer to as "causing so much unrest" fall into two categories: (1) those who are intent on destroying or Islamifying British society (fortunately a very small number, but significant) and (2) those with brown faces who come to the attention of Daily Mail readers and members of UKIP or BNP (a much larger number of people who will do no harm to anyone).

[steelish]

In England I think there is only one minister in parliament that practices Islam, but that has not stopped the people that are born of Islam faith practicing and imposing Shari law in the UK in certain comunities. I would also think that if it can happen in a small country such as mine, I am in no doubt the it is probably happening in the USA in secret.

It doesn't have to happen "in secret" in the U.S. They can practice their religion right out in the open! The U.S. is full of ethnic and/or religious communities. BUT, for the Islamic faithful to take over the U.S. and impose their beliefs and Sharia law upon the Americans would be unconstitutional, and that is what I was referring to. Unless they become the majority in the U.S., and simply because of the very behavior you mention, they will probably remain in small groups in communities - rather than in positions of power.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding Muslims, the Jihad believers have ruined it for them.

[EDQ]

you go. that is gerat. and true every word.you need to sent to more ppl.
i have more to say. but you konw my spelling. let me put in to words and i'll send

[IAN 2411]

As a matter of fact, ian, the British authorities see this as a positive development and are happy to see tribunals set up to resolve disputes between members of ethnic/cultural groups in a manner that is acceptable to those traditions.

I am in no doubt the British authorities allow [ethnic tribunals] to be set up within those communities. But they have no legal standing in the UK, and all findings must be presented to a British court to have the final say. I would like to point out that it has not stopped honour killings, and there have been a spate of those in the UK as of late, and also underage marriages in certain communities. Also there are still the arranged marriages, where a British subject is spirited away to India against their will, and that really is sticking your finger up at UK law. The UK is a very racially tolerant country, but it is the ethnic groups that are abusing our tolerance.

If you are having difficulty with this idea, perhaps you should consider the various jurisdictions within the United Kingom: there is English Law, Scottish Law and Northern Irish Law; or the USA where there are 50 different legal systems (actually, there are more, if you count the hundreds of Indian reservations, and the overseas territories). People living within those jurisdictions can regulate their affairs according to their own customs and cultures, and there is no danger of disrupting the nation as a whole.

On the contrary MMI, I have no difficulty whatsoever with the idea, and I agree to a degree on what you have said. However Sharia Law has no minimum, what is said is done and sometimes to the extreme, it has no place in the civilised world. There is one thing however the three legal systems in the UK that you mention are all governed and overseen by Whitehall, although their laws might vary in certain ways. I also believe that there are as many legal systems in the USA as you say with their own laws, but I can understand why, as most states in the USA are bigger than most whole countries in Europe and Asia.

It doesn't have to happen "in secret" in the U.S. They can practice their religion right out in the open! The U.S. is full of ethnic and/or religious communities. BUT, for the Islamic faithful to take over the U.S. and impose their beliefs and Sharia law upon the Americans would be unconstitutional, and that is what I was referring to. Unless they become the majority in the U.S., and simply because of the very behavior you mention, they will probably remain in small groups in communities - rather than in positions of power.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding Muslims, the Jihad believers have ruined it for them.

I agree with you 100%


Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

Reads like a wingnut laundry list.

You think States Rights are wingnut?

You think restricting Congress to the duties listed for it to pursue in the Constitution is wingnut. You think expecting Congress to fulfill the will of the peoiple is wingnut?