Posted on 07/15/2016 5:11:32 AM PDT by blam
Oliver Darcy
July 15,2016
Newt Gingrich said Thursday night in the aftermath of the deadly truck attack in France that the US should issue a religious test to Muslims and deport those who are found to believe in Shariah, or Islamic law.
The former House speaker made his comments on Fox News when host Sean Hannity asked, "What does this tragedy, this evil attack tonight, mean for that conflict and debate?"
"Western civilization is in a war," Gingrich said. "We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Shariah, they should be deported. Shariah is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Shariah, glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door."
He added: "Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felony. It should be closed down immediately."
The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects against "an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Gingrich, who was thought to be one of Donald Trump's top picks for vice president, said he was "sick and tired of being told that the wealthiest, most powerful civilization in history, all of Western civilization, is helpless in the face of a group of medieval barbarians."
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
The second step is you have to monitor what they're doing on the Internet. The third step is, let me be very clear, you have to monitor the mosques.
Thank you Newt for proving why Trump was wise to skip you
Trump has not skipped or picked anyone yet.
There are probably very few restrictions on non-citizens that you and I would disagree about.
Newt’s comments might have been taken out of context, but the article makes it sound like he is talking about citizens.
You could de-naturalize citizens if they lied during their naturalization hearing. For example if someone pledged allegiance to the constitution of the united states but you could prove they actually held allegiance to a different system of laws you could argue that their pledge was false.
Take them to the waterline and tell them start swimming.
Sharks got to eat...
And of course no muzzie would lie.
We don’t take the word of other criminals just this new protected class.
We need a new constitutional amendment for an ‘Islam exception’ to the 1st Amendment.
So . . then they won’t LIE on that test? /s
Say the right things? We have no way to prove honesty, unfortunately. And for muslims, lying to defend or spread Islam is approved.
Attend a mosque - that is provable and sufficient, IMHO.
Just so!
The Constitution is not a suicide pact!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact” is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase “suicide pact” was first used by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.
Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson’s ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson’s personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:
“A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”
Do you mean Hitlery, the harridan?
Definition of harridan: an angry and unpleasant woman
Synonyms:
battle-ax (or battle-axe), dragon lady, fury, harpy, shrew, termagant, virago, vixen
Related Words
fishwife, gorgon; carper, castigator, caviler (or caviller), censurer, critic, faultfinder, nitpicker, railer, scold; belittler, derider, detractor; pettifogger, quibbler
Origin and Etymology of harridan
perhaps modification of French haridelle old horse, gaunt woman
First Known Use: 1678
Source: Merriam-Websters Learners Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harridan
U.S. Constitution, Article III, section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
US Constitution; 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger....
Nah. It's the English word for trebuchet.
The landing isn't our problem. It's in another country, after all.
Yep. You left one major one out, though:
Islam: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Depends on if you make them wear a seat belt fastened to the trebuchet, for their own safety, of course!. Around their neck. With a loooooong strap on it....
I had not realized that she was that old. She does show her age, though....
Well played!
I’m with you; I’m just concerned about getting the rhetoric right.
Islam IS a religion.
And I have no problem (tacitly) with the notion that a religion should fully inform citizens’ views about culture and law, and should seek to influence accordingly.
As such, methinks Christianity need be more involved & persuasive, not giving into the relentless “separation” imperative atheists push.
Attacking Islam as a religion, under the 1st amendment, will give us troubles in solving the problem because doing so- that way - is self destructive to our core principles. Abandon those and we’re lost.
That said, methinks we CAN meet and win over the assault from Islam on our core principles. Emphasize and defend ALL religions under the “fair play” and “mutual respect” of the Constitution; bust “no go zones” with extreme prejudice; forcefully defend women’s rights; treat out extremist violence by the roots with great vigor. Make clear the individual faithful are welcome, but attempts to dominate are unwelcome and backed with force, that sharia cannot and will not take root here, ever.
Apply our principles, don’t abandon them. That will win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.