On dealing with a part of the Immigration Problem

[Gary Hunt]

On dealing with a part of the Immigration Problem

Gary Hunt
May 23, 2010

Let's just look at what might effectively solve just a part of the immigration (invasion) problem in this country. This will deal with only a single aspect
(source) of the problem, though there is little doubt that with a bit of
modification, in can be applied much more broadly.

This is the result of a conversation with a friend (whom I have done a number of interviews with, in the past, but did not have my tape
recorder set up for the interview, this time).
The question was, is there a way to deal with the proliferation of
Muslims in this country, without the government playing footsy and political
correctness -- which has resulted more in encouragement than discouragement?

Well, first, to identify the problem. Islam is a religion. It is also very political in its application, since the requirement for Sharia Law is as much a part of it as prayer rugs. True, some do not practice Sharia, though you
can never know if that is simply an accommodation to the host (the American
People), or is ignored to provide cover for their true beliefs.

As far as true beliefs, from all that I can find on the subject, and, this dates back to Marco Polo's writings, an infidel was one who
has not accepted the faith. An infidel
can be lied to; he can be stolen from; he can be enslaved; and, he can be
killed without remorse. Well, if he can
be lied to, then how can we possibly know whether any Muslim believes in
Sharia, or not.

Understanding what the religion has been known for, for at least 750 years, it is probably safe to assume that we can judge Islam to be
more than a religion; that we can judge it to be a way of life, government,
and, morality, that is contrary, in all three aspects, to that which is the
culture of America.

That being the case, we must consider whether it is, ultimately, destructive of our own culture to welcome, with open arms, what
professes to be a religion, though it carries baggage inherent to it that is
destructive to any other religion. If it
is simply a matter conversion, or its purpose is to force its beliefs upon the
host who is foolish enough to not protect its own household.

So, we shall proceed on the assumption that it is a worse case and that the goal of Islam in the United States is the forced conversion,
or, if necessary, the disposal, or subjugation, of all infidels. To assume any less severe a possibility may
be destructive to our nation and our way of life, and, with that in mind, we
must proceed under the worst-case scenario.

Where to start? Well, ascending order might be best. First, we
need to identify the potential enemy. That,
to a great extent, the government has already done, but, at best, they keep
that information to themselves, to the extent of denying us the privilege of
know just how many Muslims there are, in this country, including illegal, visa
guests, work or student visas, and those who have obtained citizenship by birth
(anchor) or naturalization.

In that order, we should find each of those who fall within the category of practicing Muslims, or any absence of an indication of having
renouncing Islam.

Once identified, an anonymous letter should be delivered to them providing them fair warning that they have, in the case of all but those
with citizenship, until July 4, 2010 to settle their affairs and remove
themselves from this country. Failure to
do so may result in them being treated as infidels, and enemies, who have
invaded our country.

Those who have attained the status of citizen should be provided the same warning, though having established themselves on a more
permanent basis, must exit by July 4, 2011.

So, what happens on July 5, 2010? Well, a good start would be the destruction of property, including owned businesses, absent the citizenship. But, how do you know if the person is a
citizen, or not? A call from a pay
phone, ask them, and if they claim that they are citizens, taking their word
for it (we are honorable, though they have no qualms about lying to us). This will give them 365 more days to settle
their affairs.

Those that are not citizens are, well, open game for destruction of property, life, or limb. Much
like the Vigilantes did in San Francisco (along with many other instances in
our history), when the law refuses to enforce the law, then it is the
obligation of the people to uphold the law.
However, when the people are forced into that capacity, the luxuries of
trial by jury, and other amenities, are not safely, or readily, available. (Daniel Pearl was otherwise innocent (he was
an infidel)) . The action must be taken
in such a frequency as to bring the awareness of the severity of the situation
to the forefront. In the long run, a
massive commencement of such activity will provide sufficient warning to those
not directly impacted by these actions to realize that they are, until such
time as they settle up and remove themselves, subject to the same retribution.

There is another aspect that warrants our consideration, as well. That would be their houses of
worship (and administers of Sharia Law).
It is evident that a Mosque will not entertain its worshippers with a
query as to whether they are here legally, or not; whether they have a visa, or
not; or whether they are citizens, or not.
Suffice it to say the destruction of such potentially threatening
institutions will be seen as a word to the wise, with regard to the sincerity
of our demands.

Understand that the conversation had a lot more detail, but it is nothing that you couldn't figure out, yourselves.

Once again, thanks to my friend John for a lively discussion.