Great Compilation of Trump Condemning Racism for Dumb Liberals in Denial

Indicrat Policy On Religious Tests For Immigrants And Citizens.

If a U.S. citizen said that a very important requirement of his religion was to eat a human heart once a month, would Liberals allow it? Or would Liberals say there's a limit to that particular religious freedom? What if there were 5 million adherents of this hypothetical religion living in the United States and another 10 million living in other parts of the world? And some had the desire to immigrate to America. How would Liberals wish to process them into the country?

Koran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

There are MANY kill commands in the Muslim holy book, far more than in the holy books of other major religions. Some adherents to this religion (Islam), commonly known as "Radical Islamic Terrorists", act on the commands of their religion.

In U.S. we have "Freedom of Religion", but what does that mean exactly?
We also have "Freedom of the Press" and "Freedom of Speech", but Liberals and Conservatives alike have settled on the premise that "Freedom of Speech" does not mean yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There are LIMITS. We have limits to all our "Freedoms".

The intention of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. was for people to be able to practice their religion

peacefully, without hurting others.

But religions have physical rituals that can impact society at large. What if a ritual was so unsanitary it spread a biological contagion? Would that be permitted?

The answer, even for Liberals, is of course no.

But what about a thought contagion? What if the doctrine of a religion was so virulent that on average, one out of a thousand adherents would be seduced to act out in some physical form to comply with that virulent doctrine?

Well, there seems to be no answer from Liberals about how to deal with this type thought contagion, just denial. Ironically, a "racist" or "sexist" thought contagion is attacked relentlessly by Liberals. Also, Liberals will mock and criticize a Christian thought contagion, but will not attack a "Muslim" one.

If someone wants to practice their right to free speech by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, what do the authorities do? They stop him. They shut him down. They remove him from public places.
They confine him. They extricate him from places where he could do harm.

If this person belonged to a cult that commanded in their doctrine to do this, but most members did not have the proclivity to act on it, should theater employees knowingly allow members of that group into their premises without anyway of determining if one or more of those visitors intended to disrupt their establishment? And allow them in for the sake of politically correct inclusiveness?

Common Sense dictates the owner of that theater has the right to deny service to help insure the safety of all his costumers, staff and property. And that owner is backed up by legal precedent.

The Muslims that act on the kill commands of their holy book are at war with the U.S., therefore we must defend ourselves.

So, is it constitutional to ban Muslims if an unknown, hidden element of them are at war with us?

The writers of the constitution left a document that had to be interpreted with common sense by
future U.S. citizens. It is beyond human capacity to anticipate every contingency.

When the Founders wrote about "Freedom of Religion", apparently, they failed to make it abundantly clear if that applied to all religions, or only to religions that did not have a significant portion of their adherents bent on the destruction of the American way of life.

That question was left for future generations to answer just like the meaning of the "right to bare arms" has been. Some Liberals will tell you that the "right to bare arms" only applies to militias. Conservatives say it means that individuals can have arms to protect themselves and their property.

So the question is - Can we have a RELIGIOUS TEST for immigrants if there are existing religions that not only threaten national security, but have sects that have either declared war on us or engaged in war on us?

THAT IS THE KEY.

Should the limit to religious freedom be where the religion in question, either fully or in part, declares or conducts war on the rest of society?

The founders never answered that question. The Founders left it up to future generations
to answer that question.

For an INDICRAT, the answer is YES.

The Founders said we cannot favor one religion over others. They did not address what to do if we are forced to have more circumspection towards a specific religion because it is so damn virulent.

If you have 3 kids and one of them is out of control, so much so you have to send them to boarding school, that doesn't mean you necessarily favor your other two kids more. It just means you did what you had to do.

We did not let Germans into our country during WWII because some of them might be Nazis. "Germany" is not a religion but the comparison applies because both Nazism and Religion are, for better or worse, forms of ideology. Why do we have to treat religious ideologues differently than political ideologues when they have declared and conducted war against us?

Or to frame it a different way...

Suppose all religions were as violent and problematic as Islam is in this day and age.

Then, we would be treating them all with the same level of circumspection. There would be no accusations that we were "favoring" one, or some religions over others.

This distinction illustrates that it is not our intention or purpose to treat Muslims a certain way that is different than the way we treat Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, etc. 

The fact is, we are forced, by some Muslims, to treat them differently with no prior intent of favoritism. All Islamists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists. It is the Islamists we have a problem with.

If a cop smells alcohol on a driver he stopped, there's noting wrong with drinking alcohol per se, but the cop gives them a sobriety TEST to makes sure they are not too inebriated and are safe to drive.
In the same, way if we know someone is Muslim we should have a religious TEST to see if they are not too radical, not a jihadist, not an Islamist, and are safe to be in our country. Immigration authorities should be allowed to examine their social media, personal connections and past activities. This would be similar to checking out why a German is entering the United States in WWII. We were at war with Nazis and we are at war with Islamists. It's that simple.

It is not a violation of the constitution to examine a person's background with regards to religion
because scrutinizing a person's religious fervor is not the same as favoring one religion over another.

Once we accept the notion that it is okay to apply reasonable discretion and judgement

on a problematic religious faction because they forced us (in the same way that prosecutors use their discretion whether to prosecute a criminal case), then we can tackle this problem in logical and humane way that just makes sense.

~ by Dhruva Aliman

The Voting Age Is Too Damn Low.

The U.S.A. has a fundamental flaw. It shot itself in the foot when it made the voting age 18. This self inflicted wound will insidiously drag this republic down.

The voting age should be at least 21. 18 year olds, in general, don't know what they're doing. Besides the fact that their brains aren't even fully formed, they simply don't have enough life experience and education to make a cogent decision on which direction this country should go.

If you have never had to pay rent, health insurance, utilities, and don't know what it's like to meet the basic requirements to survive on your own, and you are under 21, you should not have the entitlement to make choices that impact all that do pay their rent. Why should a teenager that is not functioning in the real world get to decide what the government is going to do to YOU?

We send our 18 year olds to college. Why? Because the don't have enough education yet. So why are we allowing them to vote on something that really requires knowledge?

If voting does not require knowledge, then let's let 12 year olds vote, why not 5 year olds?
What makes the number 18 so special?

Of course there should be exceptions. If you are 18 and are in the Armed Services, yes, you get to vote. If you are 18 and and can provide an electrical bill in your own name and show you are not a dependent, then you get a voter card giving you access to the voting booth.

The exceptions can be hashed out.

However, if the adults of the U.S. continue to allow an ignorant, Lord of the Flies contingent to influence the fate of this country, then they have abdicated their responsibility as adults. And both the young, and the old, will face the consequences.

In 1971 the Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution was passed, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. This Amendment must be repealed and replaced with a voting age of 21 with certain exceptions for those between the age of 18 and 21, if this republic is going to survive.

Amendment XXVI was passed on an emotional Vietnam war slogan, "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"...That should be the exception, not the rule.

The democrats now want 16 year olds to vote because they pay taxes. Well, what about the 15 or 14 year olds pay taxes? If that's the criteria, anyone that pays taxes should be allowed to vote. Which begs the question, should foreigners that pay taxes be allowed to vote? And should American citizens that do not pay taxes be barred from voting? Obviously, tax paying cannot be the sole criteria. How much skin you have in the game should be the main criteria. If you are independent, paying most or all your bills and are not a tax dependent on your parents or guardian, then you should vote.

The majority of 18-24 year olds live at home. So, for the sake of this country, let's split the difference and keep it at 21.

~Dhruva Aliman

The difference between a Democracy and a Republic, in a nut shell.

In a Democracy you can not have Snob rule, meaning, the Ruling Elite or Monarch can not go against the majority (the people). The majority overrules the Snob.

However, in a Democracy you can have Mob rule, and the Mob can be just as tyrannical, if not worse than a Snob. The Founding Fathers of the United States warned against pure Democracy for this reason.

In a Republic, you can not have either Snob rule or Mob rule. In a Republic there is a Constitution, and in U.S. law a "bill of rights", guaranteeing individuals certain unalienable rights that can not be be taken away by the Snob or the Mob. A Democracy has no such protection against mob rule. The Founders made sure that the word "Democracy" was not in the Constitution, nor is it in any of the Constitutions of all 50 states.

This is why the Republicans fought to free the slaves from the Democratic south in the U.S. civil war. The Democrats wanted to keep their slavery economy because they thought it was good for the Mob. They didn't care about individual rights.

This is why all the first Black Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and other Government officials were all Republicans. The Republicans inspired U.S. blacks to be strong individuals and leaders. However, later, the Democrats inspired blacks to be dependent on the welfare state and take on the role of victims. In the early 1900's blacks switched and became Democrats.

This is why so many Conservatives (whatever creed or race) are Republican, because they share the same core values of individualism and personal responsibility.

It all boils down to a simple rallying cry. For the Democrats it is "Power to the People!" and for true Republicans, Libertarians and Indicrats it is "Power to the Individual!"

Below is an excerpt from "Overview of America" produced by The John Birch Society. It is narrated by John McManus. The American Form of Government - Plus music video, Yankee Doodle (Tea Party mix) at the end, not from JBS. And below the video are additional notes about Democracy versus a Republic.



In a pure democracy 51% beats 49%. Socrates was executed by a democracy. Though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable. A Republic could have saved Socrates but it is important to note one major concern about Republics which is the following...

Although it is true that a Republic is the best way to secure individual rights, not all Republics WILL secure individual rights. Some Republics have constitutions that are tyrannical and other Republics simply don't follow their constitutions or are fake Republics.

Iran is a good example of a pseudo republic. Article 23 of the Iranian constitution states- "The investigation of individual's beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief." Who in their right mind believes for one second the Iranian government is upholding that tenant? This is a country that will execute you for apostasy. This is a country where the president says there are no gay people in Iran. This is a country that uses snipers on peaceful demonstrators. These are religious zealots. How can religious zealots uphold a constitution that protect basic individual rights? It's not possible. This is why a Republic cannot be non-secular. A republic that protects individual rights can only function under secularity.

East Germany during the cold war called itself a Republic and so does North Korea. In both cases, individual rights were and are virtually non-existent. The only point of having a constitution is to protect individual rights. A nation can call itself whatever it wants, but a good Republic is measured by the present rights of its individual citizens.

Also, there is a term bandied about which is a "Constitutional Democracy". This term is either one of two things. It is either an oxymoron, because the mere fact that you have a constitution negates the power of a real democracy, or it is simply another way of saying "a Republic". People that don't like the word "Republic" may use the term "Constitutional Democracy" as a substitute, but this is just political semantics.

~Dhruva Aliman