In the New English Review, Rebecca Bynum asks about the next steps in fighting Islamisation:

While I agree the more people who are aware of the dangers of Islam, the better, there comes a time when practical political steps must be formulated and implemented. Sue Myrick, a Representative from North Carolina, has already formed a bi-partisan Anti-Jihad Caucus which will undoubtedly begin to propose legislation to combat jihad in all its forms including propaganda, influence buying and demographics as well as terrorism. The time has come, then, for those already properly informed, and therefore alarmed, to begin the work of thinking through the drafting of legislation. We have talked about the problem for a long time. Many citizens are aroused. Robert Spencer’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades alone spent 15 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list, which means it sold tens of thousands of copies. Conservative talk show hosts such as and even some liberal ones, such as Joey Reynolds at WOR in New York have been doing their part to awaken their wide audiences. Now is the time for practical steps – steps to lessen the menace, not to end it (for it will last as long as Islam lasts) to be put forward.

I feel her position is less engaged with moderating Muslim nations than is desirable - for example, with Indonesia. But she offers a clear position and raises the important questions:

It is reasonable for us to define Islam as it defines itself – as a Total System, which includes a well-defined politics; a political system that locates the source of its legitimacy in Islamic doctrine which is believed to be the will of God. Political legitimacy is not found in the will of the people, for those who obey man rather than God are not true Muslims but idolaters. Therefore Islam is openly subversive toward any non-Islamic political system and especially toward democracy which is inherently vulnerable, but can certainly be made less so.

Specifically, the Smith Act of 1940 makes it illegal to:

“knowingly or willingly advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.”

I believe Islam falls within the Smith Act and should be identified as seditious. But even if there is opposition, the mere discussion of such measures forces those opposed to talk openly about the belief-system of Islam, and what it teaches. That discussion itself is useful, and one which Muslims wish to avoid or evade or suppress. At the very least, particular Imams could be jailed and their sermons banned under existing legislation. Perhaps this would serve to drive Islam underground and more laws may be needed. But this would be a critical start…

Read it all…