View Full Version : Jihad Prevention Act
Warrior-Mentor
09-22-2008, 09:57
Call your Representatives and ask them to support the
Jihad Prevention Act (Introduced in House)
HR 6975 IH
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6975
To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 18, 2008
Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Jihad Prevention Act'.
SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION FOR ALIENS FAILING TO MAKE ATTESTATION.
Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) SHARIA LAW SYSTEM- Any alien who fails to attest, in accordance with procedures specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, that the alien will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States is inadmissible.'.
SEC. 3. REVOCATION OF VISAS.
Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `The visa of any alien advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall be revoked.'.
SEC. 4. REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION.
Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451(a)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: `Advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall constitute a ground for revocation of a person's naturalization under this subsection.'.
Link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110Rs6oB4::
Warrior-Mentor
10-14-2008, 15:12
US Constitution
Amendment XIV.
Section. 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or
hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States,
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
AngelsSix
10-14-2008, 18:49
If that is the case, sir.....why is Obama still being allowed to run for Prez?? Because some judge said that burning the flag is protected under free speech?
Obama has admitted, as has his wife that they have burned flags and of committing rebellion against the U.S.
People in this country have learned that they can violate rules, statutes and laws and get away with it because the majority of people are SHEEP and they are SCARED that if a person that is of ethnic origin commits a violation, they will pull the race card.
Gee, maybe we need to stop letting race get the best of AMERICA.
Obama has no right to call himself Afican-American. He has no American in him.
Ambush Master
10-14-2008, 19:22
I've said it in here before, we need an ammendment to the Constitution that disallows the protection, of the Constitution, to anyone that does not ACCEPT and acknowledge belief, in all of it's tenet's!!!
This would totally kill the Gitmo folks, or any others, from being protected by OUR CONSTITUTION, after all it's not THEIRS!!!
The Reaper
10-14-2008, 20:07
I would encourage anyone who is not familiar with this story, particularly if you are a history afficionado, to please take a little time to read it.
http://www.bartleby.com/310/6/1.html
I cannot abide a man who hates his country, most of its people, and its history.
TR
Sir--
Well said.
I cannot abide a man who hates his country, most of its people, and its history.
TR
An excellent read! A quote from the story:
I know but one fate more dreadful; it is the fate reserved for those men who shall have one day to exile themselves from their country because they have attempted her ruin, and shall have at the same time to see the prosperity and honor to which she rises when she has rid herself of them and their iniquities.
For all too many, citizenship in The United States of America is a 'right', not a privilege. If only we had the political will to strip citizenship from those that seek to destroy what our Founding Fathers created. Instead, we tolerate their actions and allow them the protections codified in the very document they so disdain and hide behind.
Obama has admitted, as has his wife that they have burned flags and of committing rebellion against the U.S.
I have never really seen or read anything other than chatter that supports such a claim. I know he supports the legal right to burn old glory but have never heard of him actually setting the spark.
I spoke with one of my district representative's aides today and expressed my support for the bill. He did not know the congressman's position on the bill, but stated he would pose the question and e-mail me his response.
If you don't have your district rep's contact information, a good place to start is here:
http://www.house.gov/
On the homepage, there are multiple links to various search functions, including one for bills, amendments and debates.
Guys,
I'm not sure this "Bill" is necessary as we already have laws covering the jist of this piece of legislation--laws predicated on the US Constitution and US Code, the basis for our system of 'due process.' This seems to me like another piece of Congressional 'time-wasting fluff' to garner votes when we have issues that need our representative's attention now. :(
Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.
Fire away. :)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I agree, for what my devalued two cents are worth.
I would add that any effort to get any such legislation passed would further inflame the radical anti-American rhetoric at home and abroad. I think that existing measures and their underlying logic need to be improved both in terms of execution and elaboration before additional options are explored.
If such legislation were passed, would it not serve to drive the radical Muslims in this country even deeper underground than they may already be? Would it not be easier to keep tabs on advocates of Islamic law if we knew where they were and what they were saying?
Guys,
I'm not sure this "Bill" is necessary as we already have laws covering the jist of this piece of legislation--laws predicated on the US Constitution and US Code, the basis for our system of 'due process.' This seems to me like another piece of Congressional 'time-wasting fluff' to garner votes when we have issues that need our representative's attention now. :(
Fire away. :)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
nevermind...way over my head.
Guys,
I'm not sure this "Bill" is necessary as we already have laws covering the jist of this piece of legislation--laws predicated on the US Constitution and US Code, the basis for our system of 'due process.'
Perhaps. Apparently, they aren't effective or they aren't being used.
For some examples, see:
http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index/index.php (An organization in NYC agitating for Sharia Law)
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/islamists-day-p.html
There is a video of the Muslim Day Parade 2008, embedded in the article on the atlasshrugs website.
Dozer523
10-15-2008, 13:49
Guys, I'm not sure this "Bill" is necessary as we already have laws covering the jist of this piece of legislation
Government governs best that governs least". i agree with Richard, this looks redundant. And it looks a little bit to much like the Patriot Act too me!
Government governs best that governs least". i agree with Richard, this looks redundant. And it looks a little bit to much like the Patriot Act too me!
I agree with Richard and you also.....But it may be the time to clearer define this aspect so it is a standard that is Black and white in todays environment. We have so many Conservative, liberal and just nut jobs that twist the meaning of our laws on this aspect it might be good to define the boundary's a little more.
Remember this is America not Saudi Arabia..... We were not founded by Muslim's but by Judeo Christian beliefs. We embrace all religions but they do not embrace us. You have to have a 2 way exchange to make things work. Might just need to put a speed bump up to slow them down and make them think twice about harming our country and people.
But it may be the time to clearer define this aspect so it is a standard that is Black and white in todays environment.
Understand...but I worry about the "McCarthy Effect" with our current crop of incompetent, Chicken Little legislators. I think it's already covered in the Oath of Allegience, anyway.
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
FWIW, I went to the USCIS web-site and took the citizenship test--scored 100%. It didn't seem all that hard to me; there were just a couple of questions I had to think much about. Here's the link.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.010cab8025677e19631ef89b843f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9ff98424f8304110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=9ff98424f8304110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Dozer523
10-22-2008, 08:00
FWIW, I went to the USCIS web-site and took the citizenship test--scored 100%. It didn't seem all that hard to me; there were just a couple of questions I had to think much about. Here's the link.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.010cab8025677e19631ef89b843f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9ff98424f8304110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=9ff98424f8304110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I missed one. Alaska was the 49th and Hawai'i was number 50. Good test though!
bailaviborita
11-28-2008, 11:30
I wonder about the name of this thing: Jihad prevention act. Doesn't seem to be a good title for what the wording of the act says. Jihad, as I understand it, means different things to different people- and isn't limited to insurrection to form Sharia law. Think we are being very strategically ignorant here.