New Front Page         
NMJ Search              
International              
Islamist Terrorism      
Government & Politics
National & Local        
The Fifth Column       
Culture Wars             
Editorials                  
Analysis                   
Archive                     
NMJ Radio                 
NMJ TV                    
Constitutional Literacy
American Fifth Column
Islamist Terrorism
Books 
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...         
Facebook            
Twitter           
Site Information
About Us              
Contact Us           
US Senate
US House
Anti-Google
About Paul R. Hollrah, O.E.
Paul R. Hollrah is a freelance writer. He is a member of the Civil Engineering Academy of Distinguished Alumni at the University of Missouri - Columbia and a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute. He currently resides in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Past Articles
The Twenty-Eighth Amendment
Obama Is Not Eligible
The Pot & The Kettle
Unemployment Flim-Flam
Is Obama Impeachable?
Rising Above the Rabble
Obama's Dual Citizenship
The Summer of 1981
Democrat Racism "Bubbles" Up
Political Poison Pills
'C' is for Conspiracy, 'D' is for Democrat
Echoes from the Grave
The Real Ted Kennedy
Revolution
The Real Problem with Healthcare
Hostage Rescue...Clinton Style
Recalling Soylent Green
Obama: Hope, Change & Failure
Obama’s Double-Edged Sword
Obama's Honduras Blunder
Obama-Soros Hyperinflation
The Mark Sanford Affair
GM's 330-Page Death Warrant
History Repeats Itself
Obama the Cyber Snowman
The Sotomayor Nomination
A 100-Day Report Card
Corrupting the 2010 Census
Our Presidential Dilemma
The Drug War is Lost
The Icarus Factor
The Four Horsemen of the (American) Apocalypse
Bernie & Ruth & Chuck & Hillary
Obama is Dancing, But Who Calls the Tune?
Well...Is He, or Isn’t He?
A Tale of Two Impeachments
The Road to Fascism
Mad Max Threatens California
The Opaque Presidency
Goodbye, George Bush
The Supreme Court’s Hottest Potato
Rich White Trash
Amazing Grace: The American Sequel
Electoral Reform: The Multiple Vote
The Electoral College Has Failed
Real Electoral Reform
Something is Rotten...in the US Senate
Obama’s "Butt Boys”
Off with Their Heads
Our Sacred Cows are Coming Home to Roost
Russian Democracy: A Missed Opportunity
The Impatient Mr. Fitzgerald
Buying Soiled Underwear
Martin Luther King’s Nightmare
Slackers & Useful Idiots
The End of the Culture War
Who Killed the Automobile Industry?
Another Elephant in the Living Room
From Little ACORNS
Israel Dodges a Bullet
Just Because He’s Black
Loose Lips
Social Bookmarking

Paul R. Hollrah, O.E.

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment
November 24, 2009

As a measure of how far Islam has come in its stated goal of subjugating and/or destroying the Christian world, consider what Winston Churchill wrote in The River War (First Edition, Vol. II). He said:

 

"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, (Islam) is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

 

If Churchill were alive today he would be horrified to see that Christianity has not been "sheltered in the strong arms of science,” as he predicted, and that the civilization of modern Europe has all but fallen to the forces of Islam. If he could see the streets of London, Liverpool, and Manchester today, teeming with hordes of Muslims, the unintended consequence of the British colonial era, and if he could see the extent to which Muslim populations on the European mainland are within striking distance of having effective political majorities, he would see it all as an act of war and take steps to counter it.

Former president Theodore Roosevelt expressed, albeit unwittingly, the American view of conquest by immigration in a January 3, 1919 letter to the American Defense Society. He said:

 

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...

 

"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

 

The sentiments expressed by Roosevelt have not changed much in the last ninety years; they fairly represent the feelings of the vast majority of Americans...then and now. He would not understand how our treasured religious liberties have been used as a Trojan horse to undermine American society, not in the interest of freedom of religion, but most often to promote freedom from religion.

 

Yet, while American liberals continue their relentless attack on anything remotely connected to Christianity...even to the point of prohibiting the use of red and green paper at a pre-Christmas public school fundraising event...they lean over backward to accommodate the religious demands of Muslims, such as providing foot-washing facilities in public places, setting aside class time for Muslim prayer, and making dress code allowances for Muslim girls and women.

 

In his discussion of religious liberty in his best-selling book, Liberty and Tyranny, conservative commentator Mark R. Levin, tells us:

 

"A theocracy is not established if certain public schools allow their students to pray at the beginning of the day, or participate in Christmas or Easter assemblies; or if certain school districts transport parochial students to their religious schools as part of the district’s bus route; or certain communities choose to construct a manger scene on the grounds of their town hall or display the Ten Commandments above their courthouse steps.

 

"The individual is not required to change his religious affiliation or even accept God’s existence. He is not required to worship against his beliefs or even worship at all. Some might be uncomfortable or offended by these events, but individuals are uncomfortable all the time over all kinds of government activities. Some might oppose the use of their tax dollars to support these events. So what? Individuals oppose the manner in which government uses their tax dollars all the time. That does not make the uses unconstitutional.

 

"While all religions may not have similar access to these public places, they are largely free to conduct themselves as they wish, uninhibited by the community, as long as they do not engage in criminal or immoral practices…”

 

But it is the violent and criminal acts of Muslims...acts which they see as religious imperatives, while to Christians and Jews they are repugnant acts of violence...that concern us most. We are told again and again that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims want nothing more than to live in peace. Although this may be true in most cases, it is entirely irrelevant so long as peace-loving Muslims fail to stand up and expose the radicals in their midst. The Muslim who claims to love peace, but who ignores the radicalism he sees and hears in his mosque is just as guilty of terrorism as those who carry out terrorist attacks against innocents.

 

Today, it is the fanatics who rule Islam; who war against non-Muslims; who slaughter Christians and Jews around the world; who bomb, behead, murder, and honor-kill; who take over mosque after mosque and radicalize its members; who stone and hang rape victims and homosexuals; and who teach young men that they will have eternal joy in paradise...to say nothing of seventy-two virgins...if only they will strap bombs to their bodies and detonate them in crowded marketplaces. These are the things that the Koran teaches.

 

So, given the non-Christian, non-Judeo teachings of the Koran, what do we do about the millions of Muslims who are now flocking to our shores? Is it possible for Christians and Jews to coexist with Muslims if they are prohibited by the Koran from tolerating and accepting the religious teachings of the Christians and Jews who were here before them? How can we accept Muslims as Americans if they are unable, by adherence to the Koran, to assimilate fully into our society?

 

When the Founding Fathers drafted the First Amendment they had not the slightest inkling that one day an alien culture would come to our shores...an alien culture whose adherents feel free to capture innocent non-believers and slice their heads off, unrestrained by religious dictates or doctrines. Nor could they envision a time when an alien sub-culture would insist upon the right to murder wives, daughters, and sisters for no reason other than the cleansing of their family name.

 

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution tells us,

"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.”

 

If Islam, as we know it today, had existed in the day of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and had Muslims been present in large numbers during the early years of our Republic, religious liberty would today be an entirely different matter. So perhaps it is now time for a Twenty-Eighth Amendment, to read:

 

"The right of the People to be secure in their persons and property shall not be abridged, and no person, or group of persons, may interfere or attempt to interfere in the right of others to pursue life, liberty, religious practice, or freedom of expression. No religious sect or denomination may advocate violent opposition to any other religious sect or denomination, or to the members thereof. Any religious sect or denomination which utilizes its religious freedoms in pursuit of political ends averse to the general welfare, at home or abroad, shall be in violation of this provision, shall forfeit the right to peaceably assemble, and shall not maintain places of worship.”

 

Pope Benedict XVI has extended the hand of friendship to Islam, asking nothing in return but global reciprocity...the right of Christians and Jews to practice their religion in Muslim states, just as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion throughout the Christian world. Judging by the response, to date, there is little hope for the Pope’s initiative. If we are to save our nation from total Islamization we must first have a president and congressional majorities who see the Islamic threat clearly and objectively.

Now that Obama has decided to give the 9/11 terrorists full constitutional rights in our American courts, it is all but a certainty that the greatest casualty will be a large measure of the goodwill that the American people have extended to the people of Islam.

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review