News Ticker >
[ July 21, 2017 ]

“Moderate” Fatah threatens more violence: “Rage for the Al-Aqsa Mosque!”

[ July 21, 2017 ]

Netanyahu: Temple Mount Gun Detectors Will Remain, Muslims VOW Rage and Violence

[ July 20, 2017 ]

The Hidden Islamic War Series: The Deep Immigrant Infiltration Networks

[ July 20, 2017 ]

Muslim killer-cop’s story falls apart: Justine Damond’s neighbors heard no loud noises- multiple people interviewed

[ July 20, 2017 ]

Minneapolis Muslim killer-cop’s NEIGHBOR says Mohamed Noor was “STRICT, ILL-TEMPERED,” “HE HAS LITTLE RESPECT FOR...

[ July 20, 2017 ]

Minneapolis Mayor Hodges LIED: Police Dept regs say Noor CAN be compelled to give a...

[ July 20, 2017 ]

VIDEOS and PHOTOS: Anti-Israel Lies and Hate in Times Square — al-Quds Day 2017

[ July 20, 2017 ]

Tunisia Court Puts Final Nail in Wonder Woman Movie Coffin With Official Country-Wide Ban

[ July 20, 2017 ]

“Palestinian” attempts to stab IDF troops in Judea and Samaria

[ July 20, 2017 ]

Afghanistan: Muslim soldiers are using boys as sex slaves, and the U.S. is looking the...

House REJECTS proposal to study “Islamic religious doctrines” that could be used by terror groups


This should be axiomatic. It shouldn’t even need a House vote. As soon as the first terrorist screamed “Allahu akbar,” it should have been incumbent upon all free people to study and understand the enemy threat doctrine. This shouldn’t be “controversial,” and that it was rejected is a sign that 217 of our representatives are ignorant and willing to commit civilizational suicide rather than be “Islamophobic.” They should ALL be challenged about this as they run for reelection. Find out how your Representative voted here.

“House rejects controversial study of Islam,” by Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan, Politico, July 13, 2017:

The House on Friday rejected a controversial GOP proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines, concepts or schools of thought” that could be used by terrorist groups — something opponents say is unconstitutional and will lead to the targeting of Muslims.

More than 20 centrist Republicans joined with Democrats to defeated [sic] the amendment, 208 to 217. Drafted by conservative Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the proposal called for the Pentagon to identify Islamic leaders who preach peaceful beliefs versus those who espouse extremist views.

The proposal has drawn heavy criticism from Muslim lawmakers serving in Congress, Muslim interest groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the proposal would unfairly target Muslims. They don’t trust the Trump administration to conduct the analysis.

“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who is Muslim.

Ellison, who met with Franks to try to persuade him to withdraw the proposal, added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion. This is the wrong way to do what he’s trying to do.”…

“Right now, there is a certain spectrum within the Islamist world that is at the root of the ideological impulse for terrorism,” Franks said. “Ironically, Muslims are the prime targets of these groups. To suggest that this is anti-Muslim is a fallacy, and I think that anyone who really understands it knows that.”

Franks also took issue with Ellison’s suggestion that the amendment infringes on the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, pointing out that he is the chairman of the International Religious Freedom Caucus.

“We’ve worked very hard to protect the religious freedom for everybody,” he said. “But it is important that we empower America to identify those heroic Muslims within the world that will help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad.”

The amendment would require the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

The proposal requires the assessment to identify religious doctrines and concepts that extremists use to recruit potential terrorists, radicalize them and ultimately justify their heinous acts.

It also asks Pentagon officials for “recommendations for identifying key thought leaders or proponents.”

The proposal also requires the Pentagon to identify Islamic schools of though that could be used to counter jihadist views, as well as leaders who are preaching these sorts of doctrines….

  • Emmett


  • livingengine
    • Michael Buley

      I like ‘banned’ even better …

    • Nefarious420

      Outlawed outright, there is no room for Islam in any democracy.

  • azygos

    What a radical idea. Identify the enemy. At least we are now talking about identifying the enemy after 16 years of Bush and Obama not being willing to even admit we have an enemy.

    • Michael Buley

      Indeed, how shocking and novel: identify / name your enemy.

      We have in this country, and every country, Muslims who call for the destruction of the U.S. (and whatever other country they are in). They call for death to infidels. They preach violence.

      These are enemies.

      But as you say, the fact that it’s even floated that they ARE enemies, that’s new. Not enough by any stretch. But an improvement.

  • Nefarious420

    CAIR/Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood have succeeded even beyond their wildest aspirations in infiltrating our democracy and subjugating it to their will.

  • Poppey

    In my view, Trent Franks is one American leader who is actually holding the clean end of the stick on this issue instead of the other end, he needs all the support he can get in order to prevail. The trouble for him is the same as we all face, how to shift public opinion which is misled by the MSM and the sophistry of our political opponents

    I suppose this is how democracy works, persuasion through talk rather than persuasion through imposed terror.

    Am I alone in thinking sometimes things could be more evenly balanced, a hell of a lot is at stake here ?

  • Tom Peters

    I want to know who the traitors are !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


      Then go back into the article where it says: “Find out how your representatives voted here”, and click on the link.

  • Mahou Shoujo

    In addition to residual muslim democrats in American political administration, there are too many rino’s around. They must be stampeded over a cliff and turned into pemmican.

  • AR154U☑ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ DEPLORABLE 2020
  • Dennis

    though I am mortified that the proposal met defeat, at least I can say that the mere fact that it was proposed and “debated” is some kind of sign that maybe America is recognizing the horrible possibilities we face from the world and culture that is Islam. The reality that exists today is clearly represented by the conduct of those radical believers all of whom justify horrendous conduct based on their so-called belief system, which prevails upon many of them to commit heinous acts to comply with the Jihadic manmade interpretations that their religion is the only acceptable religious order and all others must be eradicated. I am now hoping that the fact that we even considered the proposal is a good sign that many among us are seeing the reality that we face from those within the Islamic belief system that mean harm to all us other non-Muslims and non-believers. I hope that the proposal is defined clearly to require this country to declare Jihadic conduct unacceptable within our free world civilizations, and provide for the prosecution of those who would preach the malevolence of their belief system, prosecuting those promoters accordingly. I recognize that many Muslims who have lived here for a reasonable time have adopted and likely assimilated, but we must always be weary of those who today will commit atrocious acts that they claim are condoned by their belief system. We must be ever vigilant.

  • David

    Well it does seem to be a law about an establishment of religion, but maybe it’s constitutional because it’s just a study?

    What is there to study? Islam is Islam, it’s dangerous to our country, and that’s all we need to know. If some Muslims are not dangerous, they can try to prove it I guess, but Jefferson would be rolling in his grave, after he had to fight the Barbary pirates who took Americans as slaves!

  • Lee Sargeant

    I am going to say that my Rep voted no and I see a lot of democraps and RINOs voted no – they didn’t want to lose their voting base. They could give a crap about their own children and their futures. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    • Rob Porter

      You’re right, they are a pathetic lot. Islam is waging war against the West and thus the U.S. and yet these imbeciles in Congress don’t wish to be sufficiently informed in order to confront the enemy. It matters not how many mass murders Muslims conduct – in the name of Islam – these politically correct fools have no interest in the facts and the truth.

  • D Cripps

    Almost half the house went with it. Perhaps this is a ‘giant leap for mankind’, even if not yet quite big enough. Maybe something is working, albeit not with lightning speed. Keep trucking.

  • “….opponents say is unconstitutional and will lead to the targeting of Muslims…” It would be no more unconstitutional than studying the principles of Nazism or Communism; and yes, the study would wind up “targeting” Muslims, not the Amish or any other “religious” group. Tough noggies.

  • Bruce Atchison

    What stupid idiots! Islam is dangerous and that’s all there is to it. I’m no scholar but I can plainly read in the Qu’ran unambiguous texts which urge Muslims to fight and strike terror into the hearts of infidels. There’s no love of enemies and concern for their salvation in Islam. The Qu’ran teaches a “convert or else” mentality. This shows also what a bunch of arrogant prigs those politicians are. They actually believe they’re smarter than us.

  • Juan A. Garcia-Fuertes

    The Republican party must be thoroughly cleansed. True Republicans must run against the Rinos.

  • Jack

    There is no such thing as “islamophobia”.
    The same may be said about “peaceful muslims”.
    The former is definitely not irrational and the latter cannot exist as per the quran.
    In other words you are a muslim or you are not a muslim.

Pin It on Pinterest