Sharia is closer to the US constitution than the divine right of kings Americans rejected

A Christian theocracy would be totalitarian. The Old and New Testament does not mention freedom of belief and it is not a concept known in Mosaic and Roman times. We all know Muhammad was born after the fall of Rome. Christianity is known for its forced conversions, Inquisition and heretic burning.

The Koran guarantees freedom of belief with Quran.com/2/256 and this is what the First Amendment is based on. Therefore sharia is closer to the American constitution than a Christian theocracy.

No, the Declaration of Independence really is not all that important.

1:00 The American Declaration of Independence is mere puffery, as the Victorians would say.

The US constitution was written a whole decade after the American Declaration of Independence.

4:00 The proposition that all men are created equal comes from the French Revolution.

5:00 The pursuit of happiness was the second draft after it was thought that the pursuit of property made Americans seem like a bunch of unprincipled landgrabbers. However, it was the idea that the pursuit of happiness was in some way acceptable led to America becoming a land of hedonism steeped in sin. Why not substitute "justice" for "happiness"? That could turn America into a nation of moral and political philosophers away from the morbidly obese transgender and gaily married people they have now become.

5:30 The American Civil War was an American War of Unification. That is why Lincoln is now deified and sits like Zeus upon his throne in the Lincoln Memorial. Will future archaeologists one day conclude that the Americans worshipped their presidents when they discover the enormous idols at Mount Rushmore? "The ones we have found were the good ones, we suppose, but after indulging in their sin of President Worship, their Presidents got worse and worse until their civilisation became extinct after they all died of the Chinese flu."

7:00 Is equality democracy? Equal before God, was all it meant when the declaration said men were created equal, surely? Does either the Bible or the Koran deny the moral validity of patriarchal hierarchy? (Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers where beta males choose an alpha male to be their leader to protect their interests as married fathers. Suffrage is denied to women because they already get to choose their husbands who will provide and protect them. Otherwise, their fathers are to protect and provide for them. A matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring. As you can imagine, such a society would be dysgenic, rife with social parasites and NEETs that need to be bribed with UBI, extramarital sex and the option of becoming transgender to keep them quiescent and sexually occupied under their matriarchy. The sexually sated male is politically inert. This explains why no white man in a senior position in the Western political establishment will raise the alarm against the matriarchy or even use the term. The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents. The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents. The West is now a matriarchy.)

9:00 How many times has the US constitution been amended?

9:30 Have you considered using the Koran as the basis of your constitution?

13:00 Legal positivism

14:00 Should the Overton Window be smashed?

15:00 Natural law is divine law and divine law is God's law. This can only mean the Abrahamic God and there are only two revelations: the Torah for Jews and the Koran for gentiles. The New Testament is clearly insufficient for any society to base its laws on. This was clearly the message Thomas Jefferson intended to convey when he compiled the Jefferson Bible.

17:00 Rights can only be legal rights and legal rights can be created or destroyed overnight. The only legal rights that have divine protection are divine laws and to have the benefit of divine laws we would have to live in a theocracy where belief in God is general.

18:00 " ... all men are created equal" [by God, if you believe in Him]. If you don't believe in God, then you wouldn't obey His laws. God's laws are contained in the Torah which is for Jews, and in the Koran which is for gentiles. If Americans believe in equality, then they must also logically and necessarily believe in God who created them equal. If they do indeed believe in God, then they must also believe that He made laws for them to follow. Therefore any law in America that is not in harmony with God's laws for gentiles should be repealed. The First Amendment was based on quran.com/2/256

As Nietzsche says, interpretation is not a function of truth but that of power.

21:00 Entailed rights are traditional rights and traditions become sacred with the passage of time.

24:00 Neo-liberalism is the economic arm of the American empire and neoconservatism its military arm.

29:00 "Interpretation is not a function of truth, but that of power." Why are Conservatives incapable of formulating arguments against Liberal positions? Or is it cowardice that prevents them from articulating these arguments?

33:00 The matriarchy is irrational, which is why it is a danger to itself. It is time to admit that the West is now a matriarchy.

43:00 Fox News ain't what it was.

48:00 Is it time to admit that both Conservatism and Christianity are kaput?

Look at the love of the women for Trump!

Look at the love! One day white women will look on me with similar gratitude and affection for Secular Koranism which will give them more rights than White Sharia!

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/11/27/white-sharia-and-militant-white-nationalism

White men will also adore and revere me for saving their civilisation and solving the problem of their trouble-making women!

All they have to do is dump democracy and establish a slut-shaming theocracy and narrow the franchise to taxpayers only to disenfranchise a burgeoning parasitic class.

Taxpaying citizens would have the constitutional right not to pay more than a flat rate income tax of 20% and all totalitarian thoughtcrime anti-discrimination legislation would be repealed as being unIslamic according to 2:256 of the Koran.

The low-waged would be relieved of the burden of paying taxes and of voting.

All this can be done with only minor adjustments to the US constitution.

The US could become a one-party state without even having to change its constitution

Perhaps one day I will have statues of myself erected all over the major towns and cities of the Western world!

The cucks of America

Are Canadians twice as cucked as Americans? Are the British three times more cucked than Americans? Quite a thought!  #feminism #matriarchy https://t.co/LcCFbgRh0L

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018

"Americans are nearly twice as likely as Canadians to say abortion should not be permitted at all. We are three times more likely than the British to say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases."https://t.co/3FWH3OXP3t

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 19 February 2018

Cucks will give up their guns without protest and America is full of cucks now. Leaderless beta males are really just women with penis extensions. In other words, they might as well be cattle being led to the slaughterhouse, hurried along with cattle prods. That is probably why American women are madly signalling for migrant Muslim men to enter America and themselves so they can exterminate the cucked white American men on their behalves.

Who is a cuck?

A man who sees the harm the stinking matriarchy is doing to them, their society, nation and civilisation yet refuses to put two and two together and challenge feminism by discussing my proposal to practice slut-shaming again. These tend to be atheist men who are not fathers of legitimate children who don't care what happens after they are dead. They won't fight back because they don't dare and don't want the inconvenience and risk of a fight. Also, they think what remains of Western civilisation will last till their lifetimes. They think that by the time the shit really hits the fan they will be long gone. If they have any children at all, they are probably illegitimate. If they are not illegitimate, they would be estranged from them having lost contact with them after being divorced by their mother under the rules of no fault divorce and deprived of access to their children. If they are still married and living with their mother, their children are probably such ill-bred disappointments they don't care what happens to them and only expect worse-bred illegitimate grandchildren from their sons and daughters.

Cucks are basically moral nihilists incapable of either leading other men or being loyal followers of any alpha male who takes on the burden of leading them. What alpha male other than Donald Trump would risk his status and privileges by standing up for the beta male victims of feminism who are infamous for their degeneracy, treachery and shiftlessness? Is there anyone to replace him after he has come and gone? Is Trump the dead cat bounce of Western civilisation?

The First Amendment was derived from the Koran

@AnthonyLarme By how many years did https://t.co/cvvWIGUncW precede the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of expression and worship?

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 26, 2016

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=256

Thomas Jefferson

TIMELINE

Jefferson bought a copy of the Koran when he was a law student between 1760 - 1767.

Thomas Jefferson first came to Williamsburg to attend William & Mary in March 1760. Until April 1762, Jefferson lodged and boarded in the building known today as the Sir Christopher Wren Building. He remained in Williamsburg to read law for the next five years under George Wythe, the distinguished jurist who was to become the first professor of law at William & Mary in 1779.

VIRGINIA STATUTE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PASSED IN 1786.

https://www.virginiahistory.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/thomas-jefferson

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is a statement about both freedom of conscience and the principle of separation of church and state. Written by Thomas Jefferson and passed by the Virginia General Assembly on January 16, 1786, it is the forerunner of the first amendment protections for religious freedom.

The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791.

First Barbary War (1801–1805)

Second Barbary War (1815)

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/focus/essay1009_jefferson.html
http://www.wm.edu/about/history/tjcollege/

https://www.facebook.com/notes/muslim-public-affairs-council-mpac/thomas-jefferson-read-the-quran/10150151355889451/ 

The US could become a one-party state without even having to change its constitution

The US constitution established in 1787

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Republican-Party

The term Republican was adopted in 1792 by supporters of Thomas Jefferson, who favoured a decentralized government with limited powers. Although Jefferson’s political philosophy is consistent with the outlook of the modern Republican Party, his faction, which soon became known as the Democratic-Republican Party, ironically evolved by the 1830s into the Democratic Party, the modern Republican Party’s chief rival.

The Republican Party was also called the Democratic-Republican Party. This is all very confusing, but the main thing to bear in mind that when the US constitution was established, it was not contemplating a multi-party system.

Before the establishment of the second political party of the United States, it operated as a one-party state.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Republican-Party

Democratic-Republican Party, originally (1792–98) Republican Party,  first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825. It was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party.

The Republican Party was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson to protect agrarian interests from the centralising tendencies of Alexander Hamilton. Democrats split from this party in the 1820s over tariffs during the presidency of Andrew Jackson.  The splittist Democrats supported Jackson.

Before the American Civil War ideological disagreements were about whether federal power should take over the rights of individual states and if so, how this was to be done. The American Civil War was also about this. The Southern states just wouldn't see why they couldn't carry on practising slavery if they wanted to because it wasn't any business of the North's, and were prepared to fight for this principle. They lost. But that is another story.

The point is that there is nothing stopping the US from becoming a one-party state, like China. Even if it did, the operation of the 1787 constitution would continue to apply.

The only thing that would change is that the only party in the United States would send competing candidates from the same party.

Daniel Bell has written a book on how the US might benefit from taking a leaf out of the book of the Chinese Communist Party.  http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10418.html

The trouble with the US is that its politicians are weak and stupid, as Paul Craig Roberts would attest, and therefore vulnerable to the machinations of factions whose interests are not necessarily in the interests of the American people eg feminists, Zionists and the military industrial complex. You can be sure that if the Chinese adopted representative democracy they would soon also be having a "Jewish problem" too. Representative democracies do what the Koran warns against: dividing their political ideology into sects and rejoicing in their own doctrines. http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_the_quran_meaning/23/53/index.htm

When urged to accept representative democracy, the Chinese simply opined that it was too divisive and would militate against good government. Could they be right?

In any case the US constitution when drafted never envisaged a multi-party system.

https://www.facebook.com/Why-not-have-a-one-party-state-if-it-makes-more-sense-353471931432677/?fref=ts

UK laws that infringe the First Amendment

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:


"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."


S 38(1) of the Criminal Justice & Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010



38 Threatening or abusive behaviour


(1) A person (“A”) commits an offence if—
(a) A behaves in a threatening or abusive manner,
(b)the behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and
(c) A intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm.


(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that the behaviour was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.


(3)Subsection (1) applies to—
(a)behaviour of any kind including, in particular, things said or otherwise communicated as well as things done, and
(b)behaviour consisting of—
(i)a single act, or
(ii)a course of conduct.


FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION

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.

Liberal dementia and the lie of "inalienable" human rights - origin USA

So-called inalienable human rights are very clearly and obviously alienable. That is why these idiot liberals have to declare an intention to protect them.

It is the stupid American constitution of course, which uses grandiose-sounding words that ultimately have no meaning or means the opposite of what it says.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are inalienable rights declares the US constitution, despite the fact that anyone can murder us at any time (and only get 10 years in prison or even less) and our liberty and pursuit of happiness is not defined.

Many of us are clearly not at liberty to park our cars in the street outside our homes, are we?

If we find we no longer love the person we married and resent having to look after our children whom we have not brought up properly and are now a nuisance and burden, are we at liberty to pursue our happiness away from these people?

Why are liberals such fools? Because they believe in lies and fairy tales, just like ignorant children. Most children want to grow up. Liberals want to remain children forever and force the rest of the world to be like them.

Are liberals evil, or just stupid?