After Nice, Newt Gingrich wants to ‘test’ every Muslim in the U.S. and deport sharia believers

[TheCount]

Following the attack in Nice that killed at least 84 people, former House speaker Newt Gingrich has called for deporting everyone in America with a Muslim background who believes in sharia law.


“Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in sharia they should be deported,” Gingrich told Fox News’ Sean Hannity.


“Sharia is incompatible with western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up sharia — glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door,” he added.


Gingrich also said that the attack in Nice is the “fault of Western elites who lack the guts to do what is right, to do what is necessary,” and suggested that mosques in America need to be monitored.


Gingrich’s proposal, which made no distinction between U.S. citizens and noncitizens, would violate scores of First Amendment-based Supreme Court rulings as well as civil rights laws that together bar discrimination on the basis of religion, entanglement by the government in religion and restrictions on freedom of expression and belief.


Specifically the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .”


Gingrich has been mentioned as a potential vice-presidential running mate with Donald Trump, who after the Nice attack called off an announcement of his choice originally scheduled for Friday.


The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the attack in Nice as well as Gingrich’s call to “test” and deport Muslims in the United States.
“When former House speaker Newt Gingrich suggests that American Muslims be subjected to Inquisition-style religious test and then expelled from their homes and nation,” CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awaid said, “he plays into the hands of terror recruiters and betrays the American values he purports to uphold.”


Following Gingrich’s comments, sharia started trending in the United States on Twitter.


Gingrich also alluded to the long debated “Clash of Civilizations” debate during his interview on Fox News: “These people are opposed to our way of life, they are opposed to our value system, they are opposed to our various religions, they are opposed to the whole concept of freedom …” he said.


The comments made by Gingrich are similar to ones made by Donald Trump in 2015, when he called for surveillance of mosques.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/15/after-nice-newt-gingrich-wants-to-test-every-american-muslim-and-deport-those-who-believe-in-sharia/


Last-ditch attempt to secure the VP pick by winning the LibertyEagle vote?

[Danke]

Deport them to Israel.

[CaptUSA]

Damn - Trump must really be second-guessing himself.

[liveandletlive]

I dont want Muslim Sharia nor do I want Christian Sharia.

get rid of them both.

[kahless]

I am starting to like Gingrich now.

[Ender]

I am starting to like Gingrich now.

So- no 1st Amendment for you, amirite?

[Smitty]

After the Muslims, they need to get started on the Communists.

[AuH20]

After the Muslims, they need to get started on the Communists.

Then most of the government would be expelled.

[Wooden Indian]

After the Muslims, they need to get started on the Communists.

I won't speak out, I'm not a Communist.

[William Tell]

After the Muslims, they need to get started on the Communists.

Gingrich is a Communist.

[69360]

Maybe we should make them wear stars? Build some camps...

[CaptUSA]

I am starting to like Gingrich now.

Sorry. You had your chance in 2012. No moon colonies for you.

Ah, memories...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZZlbRufI6w

[Smitty]

Maybe we should make them wear stars? Build some camps...

Are you going to start singing ~~~We are the worrrrrrld, we are the children~~~ next?

[tod evans]

Maybe we should make them wear stars? Build some camps...

http://supercollidertheater.weebly.com/uploads/3/6/6/1/3661625/6117208.gif

[William Tell]

Maybe we should make them wear stars? Build some camps...


Are you going to start singing ~~~We are the worrrrrrld, we are the children~~~ next?

Naaaaaaaw, it can't happen here in 'Murika.

[Antischism]

What a sh!tbird.

[Ender]

I won't speak out, I'm not a Communist.

This seems to be over a lot of people's heads these days. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/15/after-nice-newt-gingrich-wants-to-test-every-american-muslim-and-deport-those-who-believe-in-sharia/


Last-ditch attempt to secure the VP pick by winning the LibertyEagle vote?

Nah, that's ok. I only want the ones here on temporary visas and illegally, to be ejected. Thanks for thinking of me though. :)

[enhanced_deficit]

Trump surrogate and Obama had different takes, would be interesting to know what is CIA's stance on this issue:


US must fight radical Islamic doctrine: Ex-Obama official who now supports Trump
Matthew J. Belvedere
3 Hours Ago CNBC.com

The U.S. needs to organize an international coalition, including Muslim nations, to combat the "metastasized cancer" inside of Islam, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn told CNBC on Friday, in the wake of the deadly attack in Nice, France.
Flynn, formerly director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama, had been on presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump's list for a running-mate.
"I was very hopeful that President Obama, when he first came into office, ... we would see a lot of change," Flynn said on "Squawk Box." But the ex-military intelligence chief said he became disillusioned by the administration's refusal to recognize radical Islam as the enemy.
"We have to get off this nonsense of what it is we are facing. And this is a very radical form, and I call it a sort of metastasized cancer, inside of the Islamic ideology," Flynn said. "We definitely have to challenge the doctrine, this evil doctrine. We have to challenge it. We challenged communism. We challenged fascism. We challenged Nazism."
At least 84 people, including two Americans, watching Bastille Day fireworks in the French Riviera city of Nice were killed Thursday night, when a suspect drove a truck at high speed into the crowd. Police shot and killed the driver, who reports say was a French national of Tunisian descent.
French President Francois Hollande condemned the massacre, saying: "There's no denying the terrorist nature of this attack." He also said, "France as a whole is under threat of Islamic terrorism."
Flynn said the kind of attack in France is about an enemy who has "declared war on our way of life."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/15/us-mu...rts-trump.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/15/us-must-fight-radical-islamic-doctrine-ex-obama-official-who-now-supports-trump.html)



Obama and world leaders offer condolences following Nice attack: 'Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones' (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/obama-and-world-leaders-offer-condolences-following-nice-attack-our-thoughts-and-prayers-are-with-the-families-and-loved-ones-34885763.html)
Reuters
Published 15/07/2016 | 01:08
http://cdn-02.independent.ie/incoming/article34885778.ece/c2750/AUTOCROP/h342/2016-07-1_3815.jpg
World leaders expressed dismay, sadness and solidarity with France over the Nice attack, carried out by a man who drove a lorry into crowds of people celebrating France's national day, killing 84 people.








Related


France's Sarkozy arrested over corruption; Gaddafi was killed by French secret serviceman (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?455150-France-s-Sarkozy-arrested-over-corruption-Gaddafi-was-killed-by-French-secret-serviceman&)

ISIS' rise in post-Moammar Gadhafi Libya catches CIA by surprise (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/3/isis-rise-in-post-moammar-gadhafi-libya-catches-ci/)
Washington Times-Jul 3, 2016
Sirte and other parts of Libya became destabilized after the death of Moammar Gadhafi, and President Obama acknowledged that a lack of ...

( Seriously, don't such groups prop up everywhere we spread freedom.. from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Syria?)



Charlie Hebdo draws on Orlando massacre, Trump for shocking new cover
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485319-Russian-Defence-Ministry-publishes-cartoon-with-Grim-Reaper-behind-French-Charlie-Hebdo-editor&p=6262179&viewfull=1#post6262179)
http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/world/2016/06/15/charlie-hebdo-draws-on-orlando-massacre-trump-for-shocking-new-cover/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1466017650911.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
The new issue of Charlie Hebdo features drawings of the Orlando terror attack and Donald Trump.

Collapsed in pools of blood outside a darkened Pulse nightclub, four cartoon bodies lay beside a giant Donald Trump caricature that is screaming anti-immigrant rhetoric – a provocative drawing that adorns the new cover of France’s satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine.
An angry Trump points and yells in a word bubble at Muslim immigrants “who come to kill” gay people. Several translations of Hebdo’s original French wording reveal profane versions for “immigrants” and “gay people.”



French Paper attack: Joe Lieberman calls for "A Global War on Radical Islam" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467021-French-Paper-attack-Joe-Lieberman-calls-for-quot-A-Global-War-on-Radical-Islam-quot&)

[kahless]

I see the same typical set of RPFer's instead of being outraged about the little babies, children, women and men being run over, the outraged is directed at those who want to stop it from coming or happening here.

There should be a moratorium on immigration from terrorist nations (the Rand plan) and I would take it a step further with a temporary ban on all Muslims (the Trump plan). Deportations should begin on all illegal Muslims and then expire all ones here on visa - deport.

We are at war against a religion and ideology diametrically opposed to individual liberty. Where is the outrage against those that believe in Sharia in the US and convert or die? Are we really going to ignore that by allowing those that hold this ideology to grow in numbers here that they will rewrite are laws and attack us for our beliefs until they get their way?

The establishment politicians, MSM and libertarian elites that are against what I am saying are very well off. They would never be in a public place that would risk their lives or that of their families or friends in a terrorist attack. They live behind their walled compound or are in their travels behind the compound of their friends or family or businesses. They do not give a damn and are willing to risk the lives of the average Americans for open borders as long as they profit from the cheap migrant labor. The rest are more than willing to sacrifice their lives as cucks to people that hate us, our beliefs and want to kill us.

[Antischism]

I see typical RPFer's instead of being outraged about the little babies, children, women and men being run over, the outraged is directed at those who want to stop it from coming or happening here.

There should be a moratorium on immigration from terrorist nations (the Rand plan) and I would take it a step further with a temporary ban on all Muslims (the Trump plan). Deportations should begin on all illegal Muslims and then expire all ones here on visa - deport.

We are at war against a religion and ideology diametrically opposed to individual liberty. Where is the outrage against those that believe in Sharia in the US and convert or die? Are we really going to ignore that by allowing those that hold this ideology are allowed to grow in numbers here that they will rewrite are laws and attack us for our beliefs until they get their way?

The establishment politicians, MSM and libertarian elites that are against what I am saying are very well off. They would never be in a public place that would risk their lives or that of their families or friends in a terrorist attack. They live behind their walled compound or are in their travels behind the compound of their friends or family or businesses. They do not give a damn and are willing to risk the lives of the average Americans for open borders as long as they profit from the cheap migrant labor. The rest are more than willing to sacrifice their lives as cucks to people that hate us, our beliefs and want to kill us.

I bet you also support(ed) the USA PATRIOT Act, too. Giving up liberty for "security."

[kahless]

The new issue of Charlie Hebdo features drawings of the Orlando terror attack and Donald Trump.

Collapsed in pools of blood outside a darkened Pulse nightclub, four cartoon bodies lay beside a giant Donald Trump caricature that is screaming anti-immigrant rhetoric – a provocative drawing that adorns the new cover of France’s satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine.
An angry Trump points and yells in a word bubble at Muslim immigrants “who come to kill” gay people. Several translations of Hebdo’s original French wording reveal profane versions for “immigrants” and “gay people.”


I hate it when the media brings up Charlie Hebdo as if I should feel sorry for that scum of the earth. I do not believe they deserved to be killed but they truly are the scum of the earth. Now it sounds like they are giving a helping propaganda hand to the very people that killed their fellow employees and still wants to kill them to. Yep, scumbags.

[LibertyEagle]

I see typical RPFer's instead of being outraged about the little babies, children, women and men being run over, the outraged is directed at those who want to stop it from coming or happening here.

There should be a moratorium on immigration from terrorist nations (the Rand plan) and I would take it a step further with a temporary ban on all Muslims (the Trump plan). Deportations should begin on all illegal Muslims and then expire all ones here on visa - deport.

We are at war against a religion and ideology diametrically opposed to individual liberty. Where is the outrage against those that believe in Sharia in the US and convert or die? Are we really going to ignore that by allowing those that hold this ideology are allowed to grow in numbers here that they will rewrite are laws and attack us for our beliefs until they get their way?

The establishment politicians, MSM and libertarian elites that are against what I am saying are very well off. They would never be in a public place that would risk their lives or that of their families or friends in a terrorist attack. They live behind their walled compound or are in their travels behind the compound of their friends or family or businesses. They do not give a damn and are willing to risk the lives of the average Americans for open borders as long as they profit from the cheap migrant labor. The rest are more than willing to sacrifice their lives as cucks to people that hate us, our beliefs and want to kill us.

Actually, what I think is choice are those talking about the 1st Amendment, when many here want the entire country to die. You know, when there won't be any Constitution at all.

[AuH20]

I bet you also support(ed) the USA PATRIOT Act, too. Giving up liberty for "security."

If you keep letting in Trojan Horse elements, we're going to be slapped with something ten times worse than the Patriot Act. That you can be assured of.

[LibertyEagle]

I bet you also support(ed) the USA PATRIOT Act, too. Giving up liberty for "security."

No, I hated it. But, that has ZERO to do with kicking non-citizen Muslims out of our country.

Not allowing non-citizen Muslims come into our country, at least until this jihad thing is over, is only common sense. NO NON-CITIZEN has any right to enter a country where they aren't welcomed. NADA.

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRB8Jor8tPs

[tod evans]

Government caused this problem, government isn't going to fix it.

[Wooden Indian]

No, I hated it. But, that has ZERO to do with kicking non-citizen Muslims out of our country.

Not allowing non-citizen Muslims come into our country, at least until this jihad thing is over, is only common sense. NO NON-CITIZEN has any right to enter a country where they aren't welcomed. NADA.

Lets set aside the obvious Constitutional issue here and we'll even set aside the moral debate. Who decides they are unwelcomed? The same government we can't trust? You? Boobus? Do you not see the issue here?

[kahless]

Another example and reminder of what is at risk.

France ‘Suppressed Reports of Gruesome Torture’ at Bataclan Massacre
http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/

According to this testimony, Wahhabist killers reportedly gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were reportedly stabbed in the genitals – and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.

The risk is higher under a Clinton Presidency.

Clinton to Resettle One Million Muslim Migrants During First Term Alone
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/14/clinton-resettle-one-million-muslim-migrants-first-term-alone/

[LibertyEagle]

Lets set aside the obvious Constitutional issue here and we'll even set aside the moral debate. Who decides they are unwelcomed? The same government we can't trust? You? Boobus? Do you not see the issue here?

Absolutely, I do. I don't for one minute think they will stop it. They are allowing, even encouraging it, to help finish off the country. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them though.

My prayers are that Trump will, but that may very well be a pipe dream.

[Ender]

I see typical RPFer's instead of being outraged about the little babies, children, women and men being run over, the outraged is directed at those who want to stop it from coming or happening here.

There should be a moratorium on immigration from terrorist nations (the Rand plan) and I would take it a step further with a temporary ban on all Muslims (the Trump plan). Deportations should begin on all illegal Muslims and then expire all ones here on visa - deport.

We are at war against a religion and ideology diametrically opposed to individual liberty. Where is the outrage against those that believe in Sharia in the US and convert or die? Are we really going to ignore that by allowing those that hold this ideology to grow in numbers here that they will rewrite are laws and attack us for our beliefs until they get their way?

The establishment politicians, MSM and libertarian elites that are against what I am saying are very well off. They would never be in a public place that would risk their lives or that of their families or friends in a terrorist attack. They live behind their walled compound or are in their travels behind the compound of their friends or family or businesses. They do not give a damn and are willing to risk the lives of the average Americans for open borders as long as they profit from the cheap migrant labor. The rest are more than willing to sacrifice their lives as cucks to people that hate us, our beliefs and want to kill us.

We are NOT at war with a religion- we are at WAR because TPTB want ME resources and power over the globe.

Some of this is blowback and some of this is BS- Judge Napolitano told the world that according to the 911 reports, no deaths happened in Orlando until 5:30 AM- after the police showed up. So are we being played? Is it TPTB plan to have everybody hate each other and blame others so that they can take even more control?

Think about that.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[goldenequity]

France ‘Suppressed Reports of Gruesome Torture’ at Bataclan Massacre

According to this testimony, Wahhabist killers reportedly
gouged out eyes,
castrated victims,
and shoved their testicles in their mouths.
They may also have disemboweled some poor souls.
Women were reportedly stabbed in the genitals –
and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda.
http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/


Never read THAT in the media...... did we? (until now)
I wonder why.

Molyneaux makes the point:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQSFv2wUuv4

[TheCount]

We have to destroy the Constitution to save the Constitution.

I can't imagine any possible downsides to giving the government the power to decide which people are entitled to rights and due process based upon their beliefs.

[goldenequity]

I can't imagine any possible downsides to giving the government the power to decide which people are entitled to rights and due process based upon their beliefs.
Me neither. I think we need to become more tolerant.
It's not them.... it's US. We're the problem.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwp4znSQ3WM

[Ender]

Never read THAT in the media...... did we? (until now)
I wonder why.


Same as we don't hear about this stuff:

Prisoners raped by dogs, the ‘modern’ torture techniques of the US


“Afghan prisoners were tied face down on small chairs. Then fighting dogs entered the torture chamber. If the prisoners did not say anything useful, each dog got to take a turn on them. After procedure like these, they confessed everything. They would have even said that they killed Kennedy without even knowing who he was.”
http://www.hambastagi.org/new/english-section/readers-column/1264-prisoners-raped-by-dogs-the-modern-torture-techniques-of-the-us.html

And more:

The United Nations revealed Wednesday it has "credible and reliable" evidence that people recently detained at U.S. military prisons in Afghanistan have faced torture and abuse.

The UN's Assistance Mission and High Commissioner for Human Rights exposed the findings in a report based on interviews with 790 "conflict-related detainees" between February 2013 and December 2014.


According to the report, prevalent torture methods used by Afghan forces include, "prolonged and severe beating with cables, pipes, hoses or wooden sticks (including on the soles of the feet), punching, hitting and kicking all over the body including jumping on the detainee’s body, twisting of genitals including with a wrench-like device, and threats of execution and/or sexual assault."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/26/un-reveals-credible-and-reliable-evidence-us-military-torture-afghanistan


Taguba's report stated that the following abuses happened in this incident:
- Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
- Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
- Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
- Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
- Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
- Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped.
- Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
- Positioning a naked detainee on a box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.
- Writing "I am a Rapest (sic)" on the leg of a detainee accused of rape, and then photographing him naked.
- Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
- A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.
- Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee.
- Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-prison-abuse-scandal-fast-facts/

[goldenequity]

Same as we don't hear about this stuff:


Exactly.. wouldn't want anybody getting upset about ANYTHING.

[LibertyEagle]

We have to destroy the Constitution to save the Constitution.

Where have I heard something like this before?

Where in your ethos did you ever hear that the U.S. Constitution applied to people who lived in other countries?

[Ender]

Where in your ethos did you ever hear that the U.S. Constitution applied to people who lived in other countries?

Apparently from the most important document in our history: the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[LibertyEagle]

Apparently from the most important document in our history: the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Yes, the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. Which has 0 to do with what we are talking about.

Which doesn't mean that citizens of other countries have any right to come into ours. Sheesh.

[nikcers]

That doesn't mean that citizens of other countries have any right to come into ours.

Since when have we banned non citizens from visiting the country?

[LibertyEagle]

Since when have we banned non citizens from visiting the country?
Oh, I don't know, during wars with those peoples? lol

[tod evans]

Government is banking too much power on having a villain, she's not going to cede either power or the villain to the people without a fight.

[Ender]

Yes, the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. Which has 0 to do with what we are talking about.

Which doesn't mean that citizens of other countries have any right to come into ours. Sheesh.

WTF are you talking about? Jefferson meant ALL PEOPLE.

It is THE most important document in American history and one, that if the people would follow it, would sustain real freedom.

[Ender]

Oh, I don't know, during wars with those peoples? lol

The ones WE helped create?

[Ender]

Government is banking too much power on having a villain, she's not going to cede either power or the villain to the people without a fight.

'Zactly.

[LibertyEagle]

WTF are you talking about? Jefferson meant ALL PEOPLE.

It is THE most important document in American history and one, that if the people would follow it, would sustain real freedom.

Yes, but it had absolutely zero to do with whether anyone who fucking wants to can enter our country.

Hell, Jefferson didn't even want legal immigrants unless we were in need of a particular skill.


What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

[69360]

I see typical RPFer's instead of being outraged about the little babies, children, women and men being run over, the outraged is directed at those who want to stop it from coming or happening here.

There should be a moratorium on immigration from terrorist nations (the Rand plan) and I would take it a step further with a temporary ban on all Muslims (the Trump plan). Deportations should begin on all illegal Muslims and then expire all ones here on visa - deport.

We are at war against a religion and ideology diametrically opposed to individual liberty. Where is the outrage against those that believe in Sharia in the US and convert or die? Are we really going to ignore that by allowing those that hold this ideology to grow in numbers here that they will rewrite are laws and attack us for our beliefs until they get their way?

The establishment politicians, MSM and libertarian elites that are against what I am saying are very well off. They would never be in a public place that would risk their lives or that of their families or friends in a terrorist attack. They live behind their walled compound or are in their travels behind the compound of their friends or family or businesses. They do not give a damn and are willing to risk the lives of the average Americans for open borders as long as they profit from the cheap migrant labor. The rest are more than willing to sacrifice their lives as cucks to people that hate us, our beliefs and want to kill us.


How do you determine who is a Muslim? See if they will eat pork? If Al.Baghdadi shows up clutching a bible and finds Jesus, do we let him in?

The ban on countries is enforceable and probably pragmatic at this point. The ban on all Muslim is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[cajuncocoa]

//

[CPUd]

They could add Muslim detection capabilities to this:

https://i.imgur.com/MmlhqMu.jpg

[TheCount]

Oh, I don't know, during wars with those peoples? lol

If we were at war with every Muslim person and country in the world the death toll would be just a teensy bit higher than it is right now.

[RandallFan]

All the Trump Derangement people actually suggsted Newt (be one of the people) alone( who should steal the nom) who wants to go door-to-door on Gingrich; and Amash endorsed Cruz who wants to go door to door on 12 million illegals.

Trump is apparently the lunatic.

[bunklocoempire]

Government caused this problem, government isn't going to fix it.

Looks like we have another non-believer.

I'm pretty sure that non-belief in government, isn't compatible with western civilization. Maybe you should leave.

TheTexan will back me on this.

[tod evans]

Looks like we have another non-believer.

I'm pretty sure that non-belief in government, isn't compatible with western civilization. Maybe you should leave.

TheTexan will back me on this.

I already did.

The Ozarks is a nation unto itself.........:cool:

[FindLiberty]

TIMES HAVE CHANGED

Imagine Gingrich in the ring 1:1 facing the greatest American Muslim
of this modern age (who even refused to fight for the US military).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsXU9UC-3Xg

(BTW, looks like Gingrich might be too saucy even for Trump)

Trump Trump Trump

lol

[LibertyEagle]

That's a question the Trump supporters can never seem to answer. That's why Rand's plan makes so much more sense, and we really CAN'T go any further than what's he's proposed. You can determine what country someone is coming from. You cannot determine whether someone belongs to a certain religion just by looking at them or asking them. I guess Trump and his supporters haven't thought that through very well.

Rand's suggestion was good and would have worked well, until our government attacked the hell out of the Middle East. Now, not so much.

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking the vetting process, while not foolproof, would show whether they are Muslims or not. Should be pretty easy.

[LibertyEagle]

LibertyEagle The question you originally posed to me has been sufficiently answered by Ender and nikcers while I was away from the board. I'm not ducking it, I just can't add anything better to what they've had to say at this point; they've covered it perfectly.

Hardly. You made a claim about the Constitution and then think others' talking about a totally different document is covering it perfectly? Okey dokey.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[cajuncocoa]

//

[LibertyEagle]

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's wrong.

lol. Yes, it does.

You made a claim about the CONSTITUTION. The guys you quoted were talking about the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

They are two separate documents.

Quoting someone talking about a different document, doesn't back up your assertion about another.

Get it now? :rolleyes:

[kahless]

How do you determine who is a Muslim? See if they will eat pork? If Al.Baghdadi shows up clutching a bible and finds Jesus, do we let him in?

The ban on countries is enforceable and probably pragmatic at this point. The ban on all Muslim is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

You ask if they are Muslim. I would go as far to ask them if they reject Muhammad. Maybe even rabid DNA screening if possible.

The US also has a long Constitutional history of restricting immigration based on race. Here are some notable ones.

The Immigration Act of 1924
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

..it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity

Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1917

This act added to the number of undesirables banned from entering the country, including “homosexuals”, “idiots”, “feeble-minded persons”, "criminals", “epileptics”, “insane persons”, alcoholics, “professional beggars”, all persons “mentally or physically defective”, polygamists, and anarchists. Furthermore, it barred all immigrants over the age of sixteen who were illiterate. The most controversial part of the law was the section that designated an "Asiatic Barred Zone", a region that included much of Asia and the Pacific Islands from which people could not immigrate.

Immigration Act of 1903 - Anarchist Exclusion Act

Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote the Court's decision holding that the Bill of Rights does not apply to aliens and that Congress had the right to deny entry to anyone they deemed a threat to the country..

Geary Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geary_Act


Extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act


Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. Prohibited Chinese naturalization. Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.


Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875

The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as "undesirable". The law classified as "undesirable" any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer strengthen the ban against "coolie" laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States "without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service"

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Ender]

You ask if they are Muslim. I would go as far to ask them if they reject Muhammad. Maybe even rabid DNA screening if possible.

The US also has a long Constitutional history of restricting immigration based on race. Here are some notable ones.



Yes, yes, even the Irish were not considered white and were brought over as slaves. They were treated much worse than the blacks because they were free and weren't worth much. Hands & feet cut off, hung upside down, tortured.

The awful Jews were allowed to leave Germany and came to the US for sanctuary. They were refused and sent back to Germany- we all know the end of THAT story.

How about those Japanese camps where all the American Japanese were sent? Their properties were taken from them, many lost everything, died, starved, all because of prejudice and hate.

Because people have deep prejudices doesn't make their actions constitutional. And just because some judges decide something doesn't make it constitutional- aren't you ladies the ones that are fearing judges appointed by Hiterly?

Either you are for freedom or you are not. Either you work toward liberty for ALL or you do not.

Your version of America is the very thing that Ron Paul stood up against.

Go figure.

[enhanced_deficit]

I hate it when the media brings up Charlie Hebdo as if I should feel sorry for that scum of the earth. I do not believe they deserved to be killed but they truly are the scum of the earth. Now it sounds like they are giving a helping propaganda hand to the very people that killed their fellow employees and still wants to kill them to. Yep, scumbags.

That is some strong words. But to be fair there also news that CH was mingled or merged with Rchild owned paper "Liberation" that hearted US based dronegansta.

French Paper owned by French-Israeli Zionist Édouard Rothschild stands up for Free Speech
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/09/248B79FA00000578-2903332-image-a-3_1420830827794.jpg

Then there were reports of Libya's Gaddafi financing last French President's election and folks of Liberation aiding Obama.

It's a complicated mess.


(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?466250-Juan-Cole-Iraq-War-Abu-Ghraib-Torture-%E2%80%98Motivated%E2%80%99-Paris-Killers&)

[LibertyEagle]

smh


You're telling me that just because these very important words above were written in the DOI and not the Constitution, that they don't apply to the Constitution? You want to ignore them when it's convenient?

Give it up. You lost the argument. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[enhanced_deficit]

Taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah, literally "prudence, fear, caution")[1][2] is an Islamic term referring to precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.[3][4][1][5]




On a sidenote from American perspective, could our DGP be engaged in that sort of deception:

Obama's Taqqiya Unravels

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/10/obamas_taqqiya_unravels.html




Incidentally, some BLM supporters had claimed persecution also although would be just circumstantial connection.

[kahless]

Yes, yes, even the Irish were not considered white and were brought over as slaves. They were treated much worse than the blacks because they were free and weren't worth much. Hands & feet cut off, hung upside down, tortured.

The awful Jews were allowed to leave Germany and came to the US for sanctuary. They were refused and sent back to Germany- we all know the end of THAT story.

How about those Japanese camps where all the American Japanese were sent? Their properties were taken from them, many lost everything, died, starved, all because of prejudice and hate.

Because people have deep prejudices doesn't make their actions constitutional. And just because some judges decide something doesn't make it constitutional- aren't you ladies the ones that are fearing judges appointed by Hiterly?

Either you are for freedom or you are not. Either you work toward liberty for ALL or you do not.

Your version of America is the very thing that Ron Paul stood up against.

Go figure.

The Irish were not intent on coming here to implement theirs laws and demand the infidel convert or die. You make it sound like these people are US citizens that are some how entitled to come here. They are not. The question is what are you motivations that you are so intent on supporting a policy of importing people that hate everything we stand for including individual liberty and want to kill us?

[CPUd]

On a sidenote from American perspective, could our DGP be engaged in that sort of deception:

Obama's Taqqiya Unravelshttp://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/10/obamas_taqqiya_unravels.html

^^ notice what this one does whenever someone criticize Islam; 100% of the time it will be something about Obama == Muslim. The purpose is to draw out the hate and intolerance that has now become known as the GOP brand. Almost always on racial topics, too. To what ends, I don't know; I guess someone has an interest in associating this ideology with the Pauls, or liberty movement in general.

[AngryCanadian]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cna1sfHXEAA5lL9.jpg:large

[enhanced_deficit]

The purpose is to draw out the hate and intolerance that has now become known as the GOP brand. Almost always on racial topics, too.

Are you opposed to discussing racial topics?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?470183-Ben-Carson-Being-Gay-Is-A-Choice-Because-Of-Prison-Sex-VIDEO&p=6177657&viewfull=1#post6177657

For Whites Sensing Decline, Donald Trump Unleashes Words of Resistance (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?497908-For-Whites-Sensing-Decline-Donald-Trump-Unleashes-Words-of-Resistance&)

Started by CPUd, 07-13-2016




What is wrong with showing radical Islamic connections of dronegangsta who has a track record of lying/deception?

I thought you were Hillary supporter, did not not know DGP's criticism irked you even more.

[CPUd]

754164860951359489

[hells_unicorn]

This is probably the first thing that Newt Gingrich has said in several years that I actually think is sensible. After seeing the carnage these past couple months, I think we need to pass up on further "cultural enrichment" because we may run out of space to bury the bodies. I have my doubts that Trump will actually implement this policy based on some dubious things he said earlier, but given that I am not an Islamophile and I like my head remaining attached to my shoulders, if Trump decides to do something along the lines of what Gingrich is saying, I won't complain. Still not going to vote for him though.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Ender]

The Irish were not intent on coming here to implement theirs laws and demand the infidel convert or die. You make it sound like these people are US citizens that are some how entitled to come here. They are not. The question is what are you motivations that you are so intent on supporting a policy of importing people that hate everything we stand for including individual liberty and want to kill us?

The Irish were also hated because they were CATHOLIC and were thought of about the same as you do Muslims.

Here's the answer for your fear and hatred:

Get the gov out of the ME and stop the senseless killings.

There are currently 2.75 million Muslims in the US and all the BS that you've been told about Muslims simply is not true.

THIS is the state of Muslims in America today:


This report includes facts and figures from various surveys and studies, all of which are hyperlinked in the body of the story.

(CNN)Donald Trump sparked a firestorm of criticism from liberals, conservatives and those in between when he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States.

But while such a ban is unlikely to be implemented in a country with freedom of religion, the cheers that followed his announcement at a South Carolina rally are telling.

"I think that we should definitely disallow any Muslims from coming in. Any of them," supporter Charlie Marzka, 75, told CNN. "The reason is simple: We can't identify what their attitude is."

Indeed, the truth about Muslims in America is perhaps surprising -- but not in the way Trump and his supporters might think.

A look at polls and studies conducted in the last few years shows that Muslims have been crucial in helping law enforcement find terror suspects in the United States. Many have served in the military protecting the country against terrorists. And in many ways, they're a lot like other everyday Americans.
Here's the reality of Muslims in America -- and how it smashes stereotypes:

They are a minuscule portion of the U.S. population
It's difficult to come by hard numbers because the U.S. Census doesn't collect religious data. But the fear of Muslims taking over and imposing Sharia law is unfounded. By some estimates, Muslims make up less than 1% of the U.S. adult population. By 2050, their numbers will grow -- to 2.1%. Of all the Muslims in America, 63% are exactly the kind Trump wants banned -- immigrants.

They're better educated than most Americans
U.S. Muslims have the second-highest level of education among major religious groups in the country; Jews have the highest. And a greater proportion of them have college degrees than the general U.S. population.

They have more gender equality
While in many parts of the Muslim world, women are confined to second-class status, that's not the case among American Muslims. Virtually all of them, 90%, agree that women should be able to work outside the home. American Muslim women hold more college or postgraduate degrees than Muslim men. And they are more likely to work in professional fields than women from most other U.S. religious groups.

They've been here since the birth of the nation ...
Scholars estimate about a quarter to a third of the Africans brought to the United States as slaves were Muslims. Most were then forced to convert to Christianity.

... and they're not just clustered in big cities
American Muslims live in cities big and small all across the United States. The first mosque built in America was in, of all places, Ross, North Dakota, back in 1929.

They're as religious as Christians ...
The general perception of Muslims has one thing right: Most Muslims are very religious. About half say they attend the weekly Friday prayers. But that makes them similar to Christians: About 70% of Christians say religion is important in their lives, and about 45% go to a weekly service.

... but they're not as dogmatic as they are portrayed
Much has been made about fundamentalist Muslims and their strict interpretation of the Quran. But most American Muslims are different. A Pew religious landscape survey found that 57% of American Muslims say there is more than one way to interpret Islam's teachings. A similar number say many different religions can lead to eternal life.

There have been Muslims involved in terrorism ...
From September 11, 2001, until the end of 2014, 109 Muslim-Americans plotted against targets in the United States. And terrorism by Muslim-Americans killed 50 in the same time period. Contrast that with the deaths from other mass shootings just last year: 136 -- more than twice as many as all the deaths from 13 years of Muslim-American terrorism.

... but they've also spoken out against it
After every terrorist attack at home and abroad, the refrain rises, "Where is the Muslim condemnation?" American Muslims have spoken out -- and done much more. A Duke University study found more terrorism suspects and perpetrators were brought to the attention of law enforcement by members of the Muslim-American community than were discovered through U.S. government investigations. And a Pew survey found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims say their religious leaders aren't speaking out enough against Islamic extremism.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/us/muslims-in-america-shattering-misperception/

[kahless]

The Irish were also hated because they were CATHOLIC and were thought of about the same as you do Muslims.

Here's the answer for your fear and hatred:

Get the gov out of the ME and stop the senseless killings.

There are currently 2.75 million Muslims in the US and all the BS that you've been told about Muslims simply is not true.

THIS is the state of Muslims in America today:



http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/us/muslims-in-america-shattering-misperception/

Again, the Irish were not intent on coming here to implement their laws, to reject the Constitution and demand the infidel convert or die. You make it sound like these people are US citizens that are some how entitled to come here. They are not. The question is what are YOUR motivations that you are so intent on supporting a policy of importing people that prefer Sharia law over individual liberty?

Are you Muslim?

[Ender]

Again, the Irish were not intent on coming here to implement their laws, to reject the Constitution and demand the infidel convert or die. You make it sound like these people are US citizens that are some how entitled to come here. They are not. The question is what are YOUR motivations that you are so intent on supporting a policy of importing people that prefer Sharia law over individual liberty?

Are you Muslim?

It's OK to torture the Irish because they were brought against their will? They weren't immigrants, they were slaves, so it's cool to have more laws that will end up making Americans slaves- that will take away the last vestige of freedom left? It was cool to turn away those 1000's of nasty Jews so we could complain about Hitler, later?

Do you have any idea what you are asking for when you take away the 1st Amendment? This won't stop with immigrant Muslims- soon it will spread to American Muslims, then Hindus, Buddhists, Christians- hell, you could legally shoot a Mormon in Missouri until the Extermination Order was rescinded in 1970. Your little desires aren't going to stop at your favorite hate, Muslims; it will spread everywhere.

It always does and it always has.

And, no, I'm not a Muslim- just a fighter for the rights of the individual.

You may call me NEO.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTL4qIIxg8A

[kahless]

And, no, I'm not a Muslim- just a fighter for the rights of the individual.


Most of what you keep posting is irrelevant to the discussion since no one is promoting torture or violating human rights. You also keep avoiding question and points I am making about individual rights. You say you are a fighter for the individual but at the same time hell bent in importing the kind of people that are against and desire to curtail individual rights.

[Ender]

Most of what you keep posting is irrelevant to the discussion since no one is promoting torture or violating human rights. You also keep avoiding question and points I am making about individual rights. You say you are a fighter for the individual but at the same time hell bent in importing the kind of people that are against and desire to curtail individual rights.

WRONG.

You're talking about yourself.

You avoid all my answers and deflect continually with insults and name-calling- and you do it to everybody who isn't a Trump supporter. You call them names and avoid any real conversation- always blaming THEM for your insults and innuendos. Great way to win friends and influence people.

In truth, I support everyone's freedom to vote for who they want or not vote at all. I do NOT support the bashing, name-calling, etc. Plus it only shows you have no argument. If you did, you'd be showing others why they should vote for Trump and if they disagreed, you'd still be friendly and kind. That alone would bring many more people to your side than the continuous slandering.

And I am not hell bent on importing anyone- I am hell bent on keeping what freedoms we have and securing liberty for all.

[CPUd]

How is this not pre-crime enforcement?

[69360]

You ask if they are Muslim. I would go as far to ask them if they reject Muhammad. Maybe even rabid DNA screening if possible.

The US also has a long Constitutional history of restricting immigration based on race. Here are some notable ones.

The Immigration Act of 1924
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924


Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1917


Immigration Act of 1903 - Anarchist Exclusion Act


Geary Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geary_Act


Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act


Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875

So you want to return our country to institutionalized racism and religious persecution?

Hey if you as an individual want to hate muslims or brown people, that's fine. I have no problem with that, it's certainly your right. But the government can't do it. Can't you see why it's dangerous? What if the government next decides it wants to ban star trek fans who post on ron paul forums?

[Jesse James]

Give it up. You lost the argument. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
He has lost nothing. You are embarrassing yourself. What is so hard to understand about the fact that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are two documents that are the basis of government. Did we not all learn this in elementary school?

[silverhandorder]

^^ notice what this one does whenever someone criticize Islam; 100% of the time it will be something about Obama == Muslim. The purpose is to draw out the hate and intolerance that has now become known as the GOP brand. Almost always on racial topics, too. To what ends, I don't know; I guess someone has an interest in associating this ideology with the Pauls, or liberty movement in general.

Careful your Democrat is seeping through.

[silverhandorder]

I have no problem with smart educated Muslims that support American melting pot. So institute IQ tests, only import from countries where there is no war and above all else no refugees.

If we are to have borders and government managed immigration it needs to be done right.

You can be for example against taxes and police but that does not give you a right to argue for corruption in IRS and not training cops. This is how I view people who for their ideological views would have us import damaged people and those that would vote for only one party.

[kahless]

WRONG.

You're talking about yourself.

You avoid all my answers and deflect continually with insults and name-calling- and you do it to everybody who isn't a Trump supporter. You call them names and avoid any real conversation- always blaming THEM for your insults and innuendos. Great way to win friends and influence people.

In truth, I support everyone's freedom to vote for who they want or not vote at all. I do NOT support the bashing, name-calling, etc. Plus it only shows you have no argument. If you did, you'd be showing others why they should vote for Trump and if they disagreed, you'd still be friendly and kind. That alone would bring many more people to your side than the continuous slandering.

And I am not hell bent on importing anyone- I am hell bent on keeping what freedoms we have and securing liberty for all.

:confused: You replied to my posts so I am not talking to myself. I did not insult or name call you. I replied with what I believe has a basis in fact and history. I presented you questions which you did not answer and asked you your motivations in supporting policy which is contradictory to individual liberty.

With each of your replies in this thread as well as your posting history you are adamantly defending the policy of importing people that oppose individual liberty despite the facts. I believe that can be characterized as being hell bent for that belief.

So where is this slander, insults and innuendos? How have I mis-characterized your beliefs? That is not my intention.

[kahless]

So you want to return our country to institutionalized racism and religious persecution?

Hey if you as an individual want to hate muslims or brown people, that's fine. I have no problem with that, it's certainly your right. But the government can't do it. Can't you see why it's dangerous? What if the government next decides it wants to ban star trek fans who post on ron paul forums?

How is having an immigration policy that stops people from coming here that want to undermine our laws and kill us institutionalized racism and religious persecution?

[KEEF]

Dear American voters who only vote based on emotion and/or the yellow journalism you hear on your favorite news channel:
Replace "Muslim" with "Catholic" or "Non-denomination Christian" "shariah" with "the Pope" or "insert your favorite televangelist" and you'll begin to see why this is a terrible idea.

[kahless]

Dear American voters who only vote based on emotion and/or the yellow journalism you hear on your favorite news channel:
Replace "Muslim" with "Catholic" or "Non-denomination Christian" "shariah" with "the Pope" or "insert your favorite televangelist" and you'll begin to see why this is a terrible idea.

Catholics are not hell bent on coming here to overturn the bill of rights to be replaced with Sharia nor demand we convert or die. I also do not see Catholics getting in trucks mowing down children and babies or torturing and murdering people at rock concerts and dance clubs or blowing up buildings with 3000 people in them.

Like I said earlier there is a typical set of RPFers that will always deny the ramifications of Muslim immigration and give propaganda cover to murderers after a terrorist attack.

[Suzanimal]

How is this not pre-crime enforcement?

It is and it's wrong. I can't believe we're even having this debate on RPF's. SMDH...

[Ender]

Catholics are not hell bent on coming here to overturn the bill of rights to be replaced with Sharia nor demand we convert or die. I also do not see Catholics getting in trucks mowing down children and babies or torturing and murdering people at rock concerts and dance clubs or blowing up buildings with 3000 people in them.

Like I said earlier there is a typical set of RPFers that will always deny the ramifications of Muslim immigration and give propaganda cover to murderers after a terrorist attack.

Your reasoning is EXACTLY why the Irish were treated so badly. They were terrible Catholics who wanted to take over the country and enforce the Pope's laws; they weren't even considered "white" by the Brits, who forced them into slave labor.

The WoT was invented by the West to take over resources.The answer is to GET OUT OF THE ME AND STOP WARRING ON OTHER NATIONS.

THE ANSWER IS NOT TO TAKE AWAY EVEN MORE LIBERTIES FROM AMERICANS.

[Ender]

It is and it's wrong. I can't believe we're even having this debate on RPF's. SMDH...

Go figure. :rolleyes:

[kahless]

It is and it's wrong. I can't believe we're even having this debate on RPF's. SMDH...

Since you will never live in some libertarian paradise if you are determined to support the policy of importing people that believe in the opposite of individual liberty.

[Ender]

Since you will never live in some libertarian paradise if you are determined to support the policy of importing people that believe in the opposite of individual liberty.

As....You.....Wish.........


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88svMqo3ZEk

[cajuncocoa]

//

[tod evans]

This bears repeating;


Government caused this problem, government isn't going to fix it.

[Ender]

This bears repeating;



Originally Posted by tod evans
Government caused this problem, government isn't going to fix it.

Yep.

[kahless]

As....You.....Wish.........

You still have not explained why if you believe in individual liberty in this country then why do you support importing people that oppose individual liberty?

I am going to go out on a limb here and believe we have a group of RPFers that are Muslim and are opposed to individual liberty. It totally defies logic that there is a group of RPF posters that supposedly believe in individual liberty yet are loudly demanding that as a country we import people that oppose individual liberty, that oppose the bill of rights, the constitution, believe Sharia should be the law of the land and in some cases wishes to kill us as infidels if they achieved power if we do not convert.

[erowe1]

I am starting to like Gingrich now.

Kahless isn't a troll though.

[erowe1]

You still have not explained why if you believe in individual liberty in this country then why do you support importing people that oppose individual liberty?

Probably because he doesn't support importing anyone.

Why do anti-immigration people insist on misusing that word?

[LibertyEagle]

You still have not explained why if you believe in individual liberty in this country then why do you support importing people that oppose individual liberty?

I am going to go out on a limb here and believe we have a group of RPFers that are Muslim and are opposed to individual liberty. It totally defies logic that there is a group of RPF posters that supposedly believe in individual liberty yet are loudly demanding that as a country we import people that oppose individual liberty, that oppose the bill of rights, the constitution, believe Sharia should be the law of the land and in some cases wishes to kill us as infidels if they achieved power if we do not convert.

You have to remember that there are some here who WANT the country to fall and have said so.

[Smitty]

Oh hell yeah,...we need to import millions of people from a culture that forces their women to dress in big black bags and walks 5 steps behind their husbands whenever they're strolling down the sidewalk.

They'll bring some problems, but it won't be long before all of that feminist nonsense get's shut down.

[kahless]

Probably because he doesn't support importing anyone.

Why do anti-immigration people insist on misusing that word?

If he is like you and supports open borders then there is not much of a difference. If you believe in individual liberty in this country then why do you support open borders that will increase the number of people that oppose individual liberty and eventually curtail your own individual liberty?

[erowe1]

If he is like you and supports open borders then there is not much of a difference.

There's a huge difference.

[erowe1]

You have to remember that there are some here who WANT the country to fall and have said so.

Who? Please provide the quotes.

[69360]

How is having an immigration policy that stops people from coming here that want to undermine our laws and kill us institutionalized racism and religious persecution?

Do I seriously have to explain this to you?

Every muslim isn't a terrorist and every muslim doesn't want sharia.

I won't deny that I personally think that muslims are more predisposed to terrorism than christians based on their religous principals. Doesn't mean that every single one is.

You can't ban a religion or it's adherents in a free country and a free society.


Catholics are not hell bent on coming here to overturn the bill of rights to be replaced with Sharia nor demand we convert or die. I also do not see Catholics getting in trucks mowing down children and babies or torturing and murdering people at rock concerts and dance clubs or blowing up buildings with 3000 people in them.

Like I said earlier there is a typical set of RPFers that will always deny the ramifications of Muslim immigration and give propaganda cover to murderers after a terrorist attack.

Ever hear of the IRA?

[phill4paul]

kahless, if you believe as Newt Gingrich does then you are "...totally divorced to what civil liberties are all about and what our Bill of Rights are all about."

5:28 mark....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVagVK66l50

[Smitty]

One example of the diversity that Muslims have brought to America.

http://nypost.com/2016/02/22/how-academia-whitewashes-muslim-honor-killings/

[Suzanimal]

Since you will never live in some libertarian paradise if you are determined to support the policy of importing people that believe in the opposite of individual liberty.

Ironically, you're supporting policies that will destroy the very thing you preport you're trying to save. O_o

We must destroy religious liberty to save.....liberty? :confused:

[LibertyEagle]

Ironically, you're supporting policies that will destroy the very thing you preport you're trying to save. O_o

We must destroy religious liberty to save.....liberty? :confused:

No foreigner has any right to cross our borders, if we do not want them to. Nada.

[LibertyEagle]

Here's some liberty [sic] for you.
http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/

Sorry, but I'd prefer not to import that to our own country.

[Suzanimal]

No foreigner has any right to cross our borders, if we do not want them to. Nada.

Who is "we"? You? Or are you going to leave that up to our betters to decide for you?

[LibertyEagle]

Who is "we"? You? Or are you going to leave that up to our betters to decide for you?

What I stated was a fact. No foreigner has any inherent RIGHT to cross our borders. Period.

[kahless]

You can't ban a religion or it's adherents in a free country and a free society.

We can and we have. The US also has a long Constitutional history of restricting immigration based on race. Here are again is some notable legislation.

The Immigration Act of 1924
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

..it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity

Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1917

This act added to the number of undesirables banned from entering the country, including “homosexuals”, “idiots”, “feeble-minded persons”, "criminals", “epileptics”, “insane persons”, alcoholics, “professional beggars”, all persons “mentally or physically defective”, polygamists, and anarchists. Furthermore, it barred all immigrants over the age of sixteen who were illiterate. The most controversial part of the law was the section that designated an "Asiatic Barred Zone", a region that included much of Asia and the Pacific Islands from which people could not immigrate.

Immigration Act of 1903 - Anarchist Exclusion Act

Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote the Court's decision holding that the Bill of Rights does not apply to aliens and that Congress had the right to deny entry to anyone they deemed a threat to the country..

Geary Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geary_Act


Extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act


Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. Prohibited Chinese naturalization. Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.


Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875

The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as "undesirable". The law classified as "undesirable" any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer strengthen the ban against "coolie" laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States "without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service"


Every muslim isn't a terrorist and every muslim doesn't want sharia.

A little over 50% of US Muslims believe are laws should be based on Sharia or a combination of Sharia and US law. The range varies from 50-97% of immigrants depending on nation.



Ever hear of the IRA?

They did not wish to impose Sharia or convert or die.

[LibertyEagle]

Is this one of your betters, Suz?


Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”


What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

[Smitty]

Looks like it's really starting to gain some traction,..23-27 a year.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/12/how-many-honor-killings-unfold-in-america-each-year/

A report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice and released earlier this year found that there are an estimated 23-27 honor killings annually in America, though the numbers are not “completely reliable” due to a variety of challenges, according to a Fox News report.

The document, titled, “Report on Exploratory Study into Honor Violence Measurement Methods,” was commissioned by Westat, a research group.

It found that there are essentially four types of honor violence that are frequently discussed and perpetuated: “forced marriage, honor-based domestic violence, honor killing, and female genital mutilation.”

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Krugminator2]

You can't deport people who are here obviously.

That said, Islam is inherently anti-freedom and anti-progress. The majority of Muslims are anti-reason. Most Muslim countries are very socialistic. They produce nothing but drilling oil. There is no innovation in Muslim countries. Muslim religion and culture does not promote science and Western values. There are only three Muslims who have ever win a Nobel Prize in the sciences.

Muslim immigrants should be questioned about their beliefs in the First Amendment. I don't see a reason to allow a person to immigrate to the United States if they do not hold basic values related to freedom. For example, if you believe Sharia Law should be the law of the land, you shouldn't be allowed to come here.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, please do LibertyEagle Just because someone doesn't share your anti-liberty/xenophobic position on issues doesn't mean they want this country to fail. I await your response to @erowe1 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=3403) -- evidence to that claim you keep making, or stop spreading that lie.

Quite disingenuous of you. You've been around here long enough to see the posts about it. More than a couple of anarchists have straight out admitted it. One, not too long ago. Others, are a bit more coy, but support the very activities that the globalists are using to finish destroying our country. I'll spend a couple of minutes to see if I can find one, or you might just want to start a poll and ask the forum straight out.

[erowe1]

It's not a lie at all and you damn well know it. More than a couple of anarchists have admitted it. I'll spend a couple of minutes to see if I can find one, or you might just want to start a poll and ask the forum straight out.

Great, then please provide the quote. I am 100% sure that you're lying.

Of course, LibertyEagle isn't a troll though.

[Danke]

Great, then please provide the quote. I am 100% sure that you're lying.

Of course, LibertyEagle isn't a troll though.

Oh many have said it but not in the way I think you're taking it. A lot of people don't think the system/government can be rehabilitated, it is gone too far. So they want it to fail and start over.

[Ender]

You still have not explained why if you believe in individual liberty in this country then why do you support importing people that oppose individual liberty?

I am going to go out on a limb here and believe we have a group of RPFers that are Muslim and are opposed to individual liberty. It totally defies logic that there is a group of RPF posters that supposedly believe in individual liberty yet are loudly demanding that as a country we import people that oppose individual liberty, that oppose the bill of rights, the constitution, believe Sharia should be the law of the land and in some cases wishes to kill us as infidels if they achieved power if we do not convert.

I am a Christian Minister under a Vow of Poverty.

My whole life is dedicated to helping others, especially in freedom and liberty, as well as education and culture.

None of us are talking about "importing" anybody; we are talking about laws and regulations that will NOT deter terrorists but WILL eliminate freedoms for Americans. These kinds of unlawful "laws" always have and they always will.

IMHPOV, it totally defies logic that there is a group of RPF posters that supposedly believe in individual liberty yet are loudly demanding that as a country we make laws against the 1st Amendment that will, sooner or later, destroy what little we have left of freedom of religion and free speech.

It defies logic that someone on a RON PAUL forum would advocate such and trust a piece of slime like Newt to save them. The whole WoT has been to grab oil and resources from the ME; it has NEVER been about terrorists, except to get some radicals going so that so-called Americans will jump on the Patriot Act bandwagon and scream: MORE LAWS!!!.

This is definitely an ID.10.t problem.

Sorta like all those "gun-free" zones.

[erowe1]

Oh many have said it but not in the way I think you're taking it. A lot of people don't think the system/government can be rehabilitated, it is gone too far. So they want it to fail and start over.

That's not what LibertyEagle said. She said they want the country to fail, not the government. The dissolution of the federal government would mean success for the country, not failure.

[phill4paul]

A little over 50% of US Muslims believe are laws should be based on Sharia or a combination of Sharia and US law. The range varies from 50-97% of immigrants depending on nation.



You're going to have to come up with some stats or I am going to call B.S. Even in some Muslim countries the number is as low as 8% so, I hardly think American Muslims would be more divergent.

Here is a Pew survey about Muslims in general and specifically.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

[69360]

We can and we have. The US also has a long Constitutional history of restricting immigration based on race. Here are again is some notable legislation.

The Immigration Act of 1924
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924


Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1917


Immigration Act of 1903 - Anarchist Exclusion Act


Geary Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geary_Act


Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act


Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875




A little over 50% of US Muslims believe are laws should be based on Sharia or a combination of Sharia and US law. The range varies from 50-97% of immigrants depending on nation.



They did not wish to impose Sharia or convert or die.

So you want to go back to being a nation that institutionally discriminates and hates? All of that legislation was struck down.


If you believe this why are you even here posting?


Should we just ethnically cleanse the country Balkans style. Kill them all and dig some mass graves?

Why not bring back slavery? You could enslave all the muslims.

Look, I agree that muslims are going to be more likely to commit terrorism. I'm fine with a temporary ban on immigration from countries that are terror hotbeds until this is sorted. But what you want to do is wrong.

[Suzanimal]

Is this one of your betters, Suz?
http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

So what?:confused: I disagree. And besides, they're not the one's here picking and choosing. ATM, it's Obama's goons but soon it'll be either Trump or Hillary's goons. Do you seriously trust these people?

How on earth is rounding up all the Muslims in this country and quizzing them a small government, pro liberty position?

[kahless]

None of us are talking about "importing" anybody; we are talking about laws and regulations that will NOT deter terrorists but WILL eliminate freedoms for Americans. These kinds of unlawful "laws" always have and they always will.

Importing or allowing open borders it does not make much of a difference. The end result will be the same the loss of individual liberty.



IMHPOV, it totally defies logic that there is a group of RPF posters that supposedly believe in individual liberty yet are loudly demanding that as a country we make laws against the 1st Amendment that will, sooner or later, destroy what little we have left of freedom of religion and free speech.

Defending our borders is not in violation of the 1st amendment and you know that. I therefore question whether you are being truthful telling me you are a Christian and support individual liberty when you are so adamant about allowing people to enter our borders that would deny us individual liberty and freedom of religion.



It defies logic that someone on a RON PAUL forum would advocate such and trust a piece of slime like Newt to save them.

I said I started to like him. I have always hated Newt and have railed against him and his "Contract on America" in these forums. I also take issue with his comments about the internet as it relates to this but that issue is for another thread and have not had time to vet it yet.



The whole WoT has been to grab oil and resources from the ME; it has NEVER been about terrorists, except to get some radicals going so that so-called Americans will jump on the Patriot Act bandwagon and scream: MORE LAWS!!!.

We agree on some aspects of foreign intervention and NSA collection but that is again irrelevant to this topic. Despite any mistakes you do not punish yourself by allowing in the people you pissed off.



This is definitely an ID.10.t problem.

You accuse me of insults when none were given and now you stoop to this.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[LibertyEagle]

Are you really going to find something from 5 years ago, posted by a member who is long gone? Find me something posted recently by someone who is here now.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?497665-Dallas-Police-Shootings-True-News-with-Stefan-Molyneux&p=6256595&viewfull=1#post6256595

[Ender]

Importing or allowing open borders it does not make much of a difference. The end result will be the same the loss of individual liberty.



Defending our borders is not in violation of the 1st amendment and you know that. I therefore question whether you are being truthful telling me you are a Christian and support individual liberty when you are so adamant about allowing people to enter our borders that would deny us individual liberty and freedom of religion.



I said I started to like him. I have always hated Newt and have railed against him and his "Contract on America" in these forums. I also take issue with his comments about the internet as it relates to this but that issue is for another thread and have not had time to vet it yet.



We agree on some aspects of foreign intervention and NSA collection but that is again irrelevant to this topic. Despite any mistakes you do not punish yourself by allowing in the people you pissed off.



You accuse me of insults when none were given and now you stoop to this.

ID.10.t is a technical term........ and didn't you accuse me of being a Muslim?

[Smitty]

I agree that muslims are going to be more likely to commit terrorism.

That's the end of the discussion about allowing them into America.

[kahless]

So you want to go back to being a nation that institutionally discriminates and hates? All of that legislation was struck down.


These laws were about rather national security and homogeneity. The feelings of hate or discrimination are irrelevant.


If you believe this why are you even here posting?

I believe we can achieve individual liberty within our borders. An impossibility due to people with your open border ideology.



Should we just ethnically cleanse the country Balkans style. Kill them all and dig some mass graves?

Why not bring back slavery? You could enslave all the muslims.

Hyperbole. Newt nor anyone here is proposing or promoting that. This is just your typical Progressive talking point to shutdown any discussion or opposition concerning border controls.

http://i.imgur.com/B1hanjd.jpg

[cajuncocoa]

//

[LibertyEagle]

So what?:confused: I disagree. And besides, they're not the one's here picking and choosing. ATM, it's Obama's goons but soon it'll be either Trump or Hillary's goons. Do you seriously trust these people?
Absolutely not. Most of those are who caused the problem. But, just like if someone had started your house on fire, you first would put out the fire and then go after those who started it.


How on earth is rounding up all the Muslims in this country and quizzing them a small government, pro liberty position?
I never suggested rounding all Muslims up. Certainly not Americans. What I said was I would revoke any temporary visas, etc. and send them home. At least until we get our government out of the Middle East. I would also not allow Muslims to enter our borders until that time, either. Rand had what would have been a good solution for that, IF our government hadn't encouraged them to relocate to EVERYWHERE. Now, it's not as easy to just delineate by country.

But, absolutely, I would do this. It is the pro-liberty position for Americans, so that we keep our liberty.

[LibertyEagle]

This is the quote, he's talking about the state:

Sorry, but I am not wanting either my Constitution or my country destroyed.

[Ender]

Absolutely not. Most of those are who caused the problem. But, just like if someone had started your house on fire, you first would put out the fire and then go after those who started it.


I never suggested rounding all Muslims up. Certainly not Americans. What I said was I would revoke any temporary visas, etc. and send them home. At least until we get our government out of the Middle East. I would also not allow Muslims to enter our borders until that time, either. Rand what would have been a good solution for that, IF our government hadn't encouraged them to relocate to EVERYWHERE. Now, it's not as easy to just delineate by country.

But, absolutely, I would do this. It is the pro-liberty position for Americans, so that they keep their liberty.

But Newt has and you are supporting his position.

[erowe1]

Sorry, but I am not wanting either my Constitution or my country destroyed.

In other words, you're blatantly advocating statism over against freedom, and then twisting words around to make it look like the very people who support this website's mission are in the wrong.

But don't worry, LibertyEagle still isn't a troll.

[kahless]

More than a couple of anarchists have straight out admitted it. One, not too long ago. Others, are a bit more coy, but support the very activities that the globalists are using to finish destroying our country. I'll spend a couple of minutes to see if I can find one, or you might just want to start a poll and ask the forum straight out.

I can attest to this and really cannot believe anyone here would be surprised or behave as if it did not exist.


ID.10.t is a technical term........ and didn't you accuse me of being a Muslim?

It is an insult and I did not accuse of being Muslim. I asked if you were.

[Ender]

Sorry, but I am not wanting either my Constitution or my country destroyed.

Making the 1st Amendment void is destroying the Constitution.

[orafi]

My belief is that only a man or woman can have rights. G-d granted these to every man and woman. Rights are immutable, non transferable, unalienable, unseverable, etc.

Citizens, immigrants, foreigners, emigrants, employees, officers, etc, any legal entities or fictions, have no rights- zero zilch nada - only privileges with certain benefits to whichever legal society they are a part of.

So, you may have a right as a man or woman (creator of legal fiction) to "violate" the "rights" of a citizen, but you don't have the right to interfere with the rights of another (wo)man.

That includes going from point "a" to point "b", anywhere on g-d's green earth, unless it is trespass on private property.

A "country" isn't private property. You don't have a right to expel any man or woman from anywhere you have zero vested interest in where no harm or injury has occurred.

Even if they practice Shariah or Talmudic law or etc as long as they do not impose their beliefs on people outside of their society, then it's none of your business what they practice.

[kahless]

Making the 1st Amendment void is destroying the Constitution.

Defending our borders is not in violation of the 1st amendment and you know that. I therefore question whether you are being truthful telling me you are a Christian and support individual liberty when you are so adamant about allowing people to enter our borders that would deny us individual liberty and freedom of religion.

[Ender]

I can attest to this and really cannot believe anyone here would be surprised or behave as if it did not exist.



It is an insult and I did not accuse of being Muslim. I asked if you were.

As an insult to my integrity from your anti-muslim stance.

You also said, in a reply to me:


I am going to go out on a limb here and believe we have a group of RPFers that are Muslim and are opposed to individual liberty. It totally defies logic that there is a group of RPF posters that supposedly believe in individual liberty yet are loudly demanding that as a country we import people that oppose individual liberty, that oppose the bill of rights, the constitution, believe Sharia should be the law of the land and in some cases wishes to kill us as infidels if they achieved power if we do not convert.

This was directed at me and any others who do not lockstep with your POV.

[Ender]

My belief is that only a man or woman can have rights. G-d granted these to every man and woman. Rights are immutable, non transferable, unalienable, unseverable, etc.

Citizens, immigrants, foreigners, emigrants, employees, officers, etc, any legal entities or fictions, have no rights- zero zilch nada - only privileges with certain benefits to whichever legal society they are a part of.

So, you may have a right as a man or woman (creator of legal fiction) to "violate" the "rights" of a citizen, but you don't have the right to interfere with the rights of another (wo)man.

That includes going from point "a" to point "b", anywhere on g-d's green earth, unless it is trespass on private property.

A "country" isn't private property. You don't have a right to expel any man or woman from anywhere you have zero vested interest in where no harm or injury has occurred.

Even if they practice Shariah or Talmudic law or etc as long as they do not impose their beliefs on people outside of their society, then it's none of your business what they practice.

^^THIS^^

THANK YOU.

[kahless]

My belief is that only a man or woman can have rights. G-d granted these to every man and woman. Rights are immutable, non transferable, unalienable, unseverable, etc.

Citizens, immigrants, foreigners, emigrants, employees, officers, etc, any legal entities or fictions, have no rights- zero zilch nada - only privileges with certain benefits to whichever legal society they are a part of.

So, you may have a right as a man or woman (creator of legal fiction) to "violate" the "rights" of a citizen, but you don't have the right to interfere with the rights of another (wo)man.

That includes going from point "a" to point "b", anywhere on g-d's green earth, unless it is trespass on private property.

A "country" isn't private property. You don't have a right to expel any man or woman from anywhere you have zero vested interest in where no harm or injury has occurred.

Even if they practice Shariah or Talmudic law or etc as long as they do not impose their beliefs on people outside of their society, then it's none of your business what they practice.

A majority of Muslims in this world believe Sharia requires everyone regardless of faith to adhere to it. That is imposing their beliefs on people outside of their society.

[Smitty]

I am a Christian Minister .

Genesis 16-12 NIV

He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

[LibertyEagle]

If you have no borders, you have no nation.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Ender]

A majority of Muslims in this world believe Sharia requires everyone regardless of faith to adhere to it. That is imposing their beliefs on people outside of their society.

Repeat:



Indeed, the truth about Muslims in America is perhaps surprising -- but not in the way Trump and his supporters might think.

A look at polls and studies conducted in the last few years shows that Muslims have been crucial in helping law enforcement find terror suspects in the United States. Many have served in the military protecting the country against terrorists. And in many ways, they're a lot like other everyday Americans.
Here's the reality of Muslims in America -- and how it smashes stereotypes:

They are a minuscule portion of the U.S. population
It's difficult to come by hard numbers because the U.S. Census doesn't collect religious data. But the fear of Muslims taking over and imposing Sharia law is unfounded. By some estimates, Muslims make up less than 1% of the U.S. adult population. By 2050, their numbers will grow -- to 2.1%. Of all the Muslims in America, 63% are exactly the kind Trump wants banned -- immigrants.

They're better educated than most Americans
U.S. Muslims have the second-highest level of education among major religious groups in the country; Jews have the highest. And a greater proportion of them have college degrees than the general U.S. population.

They have more gender equality
While in many parts of the Muslim world, women are confined to second-class status, that's not the case among American Muslims. Virtually all of them, 90%, agree that women should be able to work outside the home. American Muslim women hold more college or postgraduate degrees than Muslim men. And they are more likely to work in professional fields than women from most other U.S. religious groups.

They've been here since the birth of the nation ...
Scholars estimate about a quarter to a third of the Africans brought to the United States as slaves were Muslims. Most were then forced to convert to Christianity.

... and they're not just clustered in big cities
American Muslims live in cities big and small all across the United States. The first mosque built in America was in, of all places, Ross, North Dakota, back in 1929.

They're as religious as Christians ...
The general perception of Muslims has one thing right: Most Muslims are very religious. About half say they attend the weekly Friday prayers. But that makes them similar to Christians: About 70% of Christians say religion is important in their lives, and about 45% go to a weekly service.

... but they're not as dogmatic as they are portrayed
Much has been made about fundamentalist Muslims and their strict interpretation of the Quran. But most American Muslims are different. A Pew religious landscape survey found that 57% of American Muslims say there is more than one way to interpret Islam's teachings. A similar number say many different religions can lead to eternal life.

There have been Muslims involved in terrorism ...
From September 11, 2001, until the end of 2014, 109 Muslim-Americans plotted against targets in the United States. And terrorism by Muslim-Americans killed 50 in the same time period. Contrast that with the deaths from other mass shootings just last year: 136 -- more than twice as many as all the deaths from 13 years of Muslim-American terrorism.

... but they've also spoken out against it
After every terrorist attack at home and abroad, the refrain rises, "Where is the Muslim condemnation?" American Muslims have spoken out -- and done much more. A Duke University study found more terrorism suspects and perpetrators were brought to the attention of law enforcement by members of the Muslim-American community than were discovered through U.S. government investigations. And a Pew survey found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims say their religious leaders aren't speaking out enough against Islamic extremism.

[Ender]

Genesis 16-12 NIV

He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."


^^Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and be known as one.^^

[69360]

That's the end of the discussion about allowing them into America.

No, it's not. Just because I think they are more likely to be terrorists doesn't mean they all are. I'm sure many of them are upstanding people and some of them are even legitimate refugees.


These laws were about rather national security and homogeneity. The feelings of hate or discrimination are irrelevant.



I believe we can achieve individual liberty within our borders. An impossibility due to people with your open border ideology.



Hyperbole. Newt nor anyone here is proposing or promoting that. This is just your typical Progressive talking point to shutdown any discussion or opposition concerning border controls.



This is crap, we all know it's crap and you are trying weave a word quilt to explain away your hatred.

You most assuredly are taking away people's liberty. What if a white person wanted to convert to islam? Kick them out? Kill them? What if a US citizen wanted to marry a muslim? Deny them their spouse?

[Smitty]

^^Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and be known as one.^^

The theology school you went to must not have been very good.

[kahless]

Repeat:

51% Sharia law within the US.


Should Muslims in the U.S. have their own courts or tribunals in America to apply shariah law or

should they be subject to American laws and courts?

39% AMERICAN COURTS ONLY

36% BE FREE TO CHOOSE EITHER

15% SHARIAH COURTS ONLY

7% DON’T KNOW

3% NO ANSWER


Outside the US.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/gsi2-overview-1.png

[kahless]

No, it's not. Just because I think they are more likely to be terrorists doesn't mean they all are. I'm sure many of them are upstanding people and some of them are even legitimate refugees.



This is crap, we all know it's crap and you are trying weave a word quilt to explain away your hatred.

You most assuredly are taking away people's liberty. What if a white person wanted to convert to islam? Kick them out? Kill them? What if a US citizen wanted to marry a muslim? Deny them their spouse?

You believe stopping people from coming here is taking away their liberty, yet you have no problem with allowing them to come here to take MY liberty.

I do not believe you and several here are what you say you are since it completely defies logic if you support individual liberty you demand importing Muslims that would deny my liberty or open our borders to them to effect the same result.

[orafi]

Like I said, dear Kahless:

They should be allowed to practice whatever they wish so long as they do not interfere with another man or woman's rights.

You don't have a right to deny travel to another man or woman from any piece of earth you do not own or have interest in (unless you are granted title as trustee,enlisted or employed etc by the property owner) who isn't causing harm or injury to another (wo)man/property.

This goes with any belief system ,not just "Islamic" law.

After all, this country is a Common Law land and thank g-d it still is one.

That's my belief. But what do I know? Only g-d does.

[nikcers]

You advocated for Trump before Rand dropped out. I do not believe you and several here are what you say you are since it completely defies logic if you support Trump

[kahless]

Like I said, dear Kahless:

They should be allowed to practice whatever they wish so long as they do not interfere with another man or woman's rights.

You don't have a right to deny travel to another man or woman from any piece of earth you do not own or have interest in (unless you are granted title as trustee,enlisted or employed etc by the property owner) who isn't causing harm or injury to another (wo)man/property.

This goes with any belief system ,not just "Islamic" law.

After all, this country is a Common Law land and thank g-d it still is one.

That's my belief. But what do I know? Only g-d does.

In a perfect world I would agree with you. This is not one. We have a duty as a people to defend our borders from people that wish deny us our liberty.

[Ender]

The theology school you went to must not have been very good.

Save it for the Religious Forum.

[nikcers]

In a perfect world I would agree with you. This is not one. We have a duty as a people to defend our borders from people that wish deny us our liberty.

The military industrial complex creates blowback, if we stop that we will not be in a perfect world, but we won't attract terror with our anti Russia foreign policy.

[Ender]

The military industrial complex creates blowback, if we stop that we will not be in a perfect world, but we won't attract terror with our anti Russia foreign policy.

Absolutely.

[kahless]

The military industrial complex creates blowback, if we stop that we will not be in a perfect world, but we won't attract terror with our anti Russia foreign policy.

It will change nothing on this issue. They will always hate us since we are the infidel and will demand Sharia law here regardless.

[Krugminator2]

You believe stopping people from coming here is taking away their liberty, yet you have no problem with allowing them to come here to take MY liberty.

I do not believe you and several here are what you say you are since it completely defies logic if you support individual liberty you demand importing Muslims that would deny my liberty or open our borders to them to effect the same result.

I agree with none of your views about the economics of trade and immigration.

But I don't see how it is compatible to allow people to immigrate here who think a person should be murdered if they convert from Islam. That isn't just a difference of opinion. That shouldn't become an acceptable part of our culture.

60 Minutes Australia looked at how mass Muslim immigration is working in Sweden. It is a disaster. It is backwards culture.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSbgxChQAhQ

[Ender]

From the Ron Paul Forum.


How To Cure America's Culture of Violence

By Ron Paul
7/11/2016

Government thrives on the threat of violence and/or the initiation of violence. Naturally such an institution will attract individuals and groups that will want to steer that violence in their favor and in the favor of friends.

This setup creates resentment amongst the victims of government violence. People themselves resort to using aggressive force against others. After all, if the government can do it, why can't they? An unfair justice system only adds fuel to the fire.

Then you have to consider the perpetual war that the U.S. government has subjected us to. Add to that an FCC-licensed media that sensationalizes and glorifies war. Ultimately, you end up with an entire culture of violence.

Professional demagogues are provided with a population ready for to hear that they are victims. Responsibility for ones own-self and actions are replaced with the temptation of identifying with a group or collective. Instead of using your mind to shape your own world, the siren song of the demagogue, and the abundance that is promised, become too hard to resist.

Only the adoption of a different set of ideas has the ability to turn around a culture of violence and victimization. If you and I are not allowed to rob our neighbor, the government should not be allowed to do it either. If you and I are not allowed to use aggressive force against our fellow man, neither should the government be granted immunity either.

The more that people decide to live by the non-aggression principle, the faster society would heal. Transactions, exchanges, trades and contracts should all be done voluntarily. Government violence should never be introduced to tilt the tables one way or another.

​Once again, if government violence is introduced, resentment creeps in and a cycle of fighting to get in control of government force takes over.

The answers exist, and they're found in the ideas of liberty.
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/...re-of-violence

[nikcers]

It will change nothing on this issue. They will always hate us since we are the infidel and will demand Sharia law here regardless.

They hate us because we are free? You need to stop listening to Trump he is poisoning your brain.
(freedom of religion)

[kahless]

I agree with none of your views about the economics of trade and immigration.

But I don't see how it is compatible to allow people to immigrate here who think a person should be murdered if they convert from Islam. That isn't just a difference of opinion. That shouldn't become an acceptable part of our culture.

60 Minutes Australia looked at how mass Muslim immigration is working in Sweden. It is a disaster. It is backwards culture.


Sounds like we somewhat do agree on this aspect of immigration policy.

[Smitty]

People on here want to argue that Muslim hostility towards the American people is due to blowback. I can't say that you're wrong, but it makes no difference.

I don't feel compelled to compromise my safety by allowing a culture which is hell bent on distributing some "blowback" into the U.S.A.

The argument makes no sense.

Man A says: Muslims are hostile to Americans so I don't want them in America.

Man B says: They're only hostile to Americans because of the American government's aggression in the Middle East, so we're obligated to allow them into America.

Man A says: That's about the craziest thing I've ever heard.

[nikcers]

People on here want to argue that Muslim hostility towards the American people is due to blowback. I can't say that you're wrong, but it makes no difference.

I don't feel compelled to compromise my safety by allowing a culture which is hell bent on distributing some "blowback" into the U.S.A.

The argument makes no sense.

Man A says: Muslims are hostile to Americans so I don't want them in America.

Man B says: They're only hostile to Americans because of the American government's aggression in the Middle East, so we're obligated to allow them into America.

Man A says: That's about the craziest thing I've ever heard.

You're not saying we are wrong you're saying Ron Paul is wrong.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[nikcers]

Who the hell created all of the immigrants? Someones doing the raping.

[Ender]

People on here want to argue that Muslim hostility towards the American people is due to blowback. I can't say that you're wrong, but it makes no difference.

I don't feel compelled to compromise my safety by allowing a culture which is hell bent on distributing some "blowback" into the U.S.A.

The argument makes no sense.

Man A says: Muslims are hostile to Americans so I don't want them in America.

Man B says: They're only hostile to Americans because of the American government's aggression in the Middle East, so we're obligated to allow them into America.

Man A says: That's about the craziest thing I've ever heard.

THIS is what I object to from The Grinch:


Gingrich’s proposal, which made no distinction between U.S. citizens and noncitizens, would violate scores of First Amendment-based Supreme Court rulings as well as civil rights laws that together bar discrimination on the basis of religion, entanglement by the government in religion and restrictions on freedom of expression and belief.


Specifically the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the attack in Nice as well as Gingrich’s call to “test” and deport Muslims in the United States.
“When former House speaker Newt Gingrich suggests that American Muslims be subjected to Inquisition-style religious test and then expelled from their homes and nation,” CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awaid said, “he plays into the hands of terror recruiters and betrays the American values he purports to uphold.”

This is unconstitutional and will spread to many other religions and organizations.

[Smitty]

You're not saying we are wrong you're saying Ron Paul is wrong.

If Ron Paul says that Americans are under no threat from the Muslim world, he's wrong.

[nikcers]

If Ron Paul says that Americans are under no threat from the Muslim world, he's wrong.

And if I reframe the argument in a completely different way I can win too.

[Ender]

From Rockwell:


A Question About the Cops in Nice
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The ones who let the murderer through without proof he was asked to deliver ice cream, or even looking in his large truck, where he was carrying a box of hand grenades.

Who placed them there?

Writes Butler Shaffer:

And who had the foresight to be videotaping his attack apparently even before it had begun?

[CPUd]

It will change nothing on this issue. They will always hate us since we are the infidel and will demand Sharia law here regardless.

This may be a RPFs first. Someone seriously arguing "they hate us for our freedoms"

[erowe1]

I don't consider this worth my time to bother looking into, so I'll just ask anyone who has put themselves through that misery already.

Does Newt provide a way to determine who counts as a Muslim in the first place, so as to apply his tests to them?

[erowe1]

I guess the kick-Muslims-out-of-America proponents here don't consider the possibility of persuading Muslims not to want to kill innocent people, or even not to be Muslims at all, an option worth pursuing. Is that right?

[nikcers]

I don't consider this worth my time to bother looking into, so I'll just ask anyone who has put themselves through that misery already.

Does Newt provide a way to determine who counts as a Muslim in the first place, so as to apply his tests to them?

The only plausible way would be metadata. His plan is to target people and make them take some sort of test that determines whether or not they support sharia law. Which they could always just lie, its just an excuse to increase domestic surveillance for deep state purposes.

[kahless]

This may be a RPFs first. Someone seriously arguing "they hate us for our freedoms"

I nor anyone here has not even come close to using such a slogan. Ron Paul was right about blowback but that does not mean we also ignore the ideological problem of Islam.

[nikcers]

I guess the kick-Muslims-out-of-America proponents here don't consider the possibility of persuading Muslims not to want to kill innocent people, or even not to be Muslims at all, an option worth pursuing. Is that right?

Most of those are either uninformed or professional comment trolls they're here to subvert they will start bumping threads with Trump campaign talking points - when they lose their argument they reframe their argument and call you a liar or say your source is bad- they are basically ads

[nikcers]

I nor anyone here has not even come close to using such a slogan. Ron Paul was right about blowback but that does not mean we also ignore the ideological problem of Islam.

what part of non intervention don't you understand.

[Ender]

I nor anyone here has not even come close to using such a slogan. Ron Paul was right about blowback but that does not mean we also ignore the ideological problem of Islam.

So....... what about all the peaceful Muslims that live here and have for years?

And what religion is it exactly that drones the ME, killing millions of innocents?

[CPUd]

I nor anyone here has not even come close to using such a slogan. Ron Paul was right about blowback but that does not mean we also ignore the ideological problem of Islam.

I never said "water is wet", but this morning I jumped in a creek and now I'm drying my socks.

[kahless]

The only plausible way would be metadata. His plan is to target people and make them take some sort of test that determines whether or not they support sharia law. Which they could always just lie, its just an excuse to increase domestic surveillance for deep state purposes.

Documents of birth, take a look at social media, ask if they are Muslim and maybe go as far to ask them if they reject Muhammad as their prophet of god.

[kahless]

what part of non intervention don't you understand.

What part of "Ron Paul was right about blowback" that you do not understand? What does securing our borders have to do with non-intervention? Again, why are you and a few others here so hell bent on opening our borders to potential terrorists? What is your motivation and what do you expect to gain by it? Hmmm.

[phill4paul]

Documents of birth, take a look at social media, ask if they are Muslim and maybe go as far to ask them if they reject Muhammad as their prophet of god.

You want to ask a person to renounce their religious belief? Including American citizens? You really have no place in the liberty movement. At all.

[Ender]

What part of "Ron Paul was right about blowback" that you do not understand? What does securing our borders have to do with non-intervention? Again, why are you and a few others here so hell bent on opening our borders to potential terrorists? What is your motivation and what do you expect to gain by it? Hmmm.

This rhetoric sounds familiar.....


Despite that, the power of Jewry and its supporters grew so great in the German people that it lead to the collapse in 1918. The primary cause for this was the large increase in the population of our people, combined with growing liberal tendencies, which led more and more Germans to misperceive the fact of the racial problem, and thus become indifferent to the Jewish danger.

The National Socialist worldview has in recent years opened the eyes of the greater part of our people to this problem. The German people has recognized that the Jew has crept in like a parasite not only into our people, but into all the peoples of the earth, and that it is attempting to corrupt the original racial characteristics of the peoples in order to destroy them both racially and as states, and thereby rule over them.

It is, nonetheless, false if one German or another concludes that since the Jew has been eliminated from German politics, that Jewish influence has also been entirely eliminated from our thinking and conduct. One even sometimes hears the superficial view that things are the same in other peoples of the world, since they have followed our example. That is true in only a few cases. Instead, we must remember that according to reliable statistics, there are about 16 million religious Jews in the world, 10 million of whom live in Europe alone, almost three fifths of the total. Another 4.5 million live in America, 800,000 in Asia, 530,000 in Africa, 25,000 in Australia. These figures alonge prove that the Jewish danger is particularly great in Europe. It is also clear why the dramatic growth of Jewry in America is such a danger for us. The Jew is establishing his main forces in the Western Hemisphere, from where he believes he will be able to continue to wage war against us from a secure position.

It is in part this uncertainty that drives the Jews to pursue their goal of world domination more quickly and more consistently. Even Goethe wrote: “The Jew will not spare us.” We can be sure that this is more true today than ever before. In the book by the Jews Zangwill and Roth titled Now and Forever, a conversation reveals what the Jewish world parasite sees as its final goal, world domination [the book referred to is Now and Forever: a Conversation with Mr. Israel Zangwill on the Jew and the Future (New York: R. M. McBride, 1925)]. With all the passion in the Jewish breast, the book tells the story of a Jew out for revenge. He wanders from country to country, gathering his forces, at the head of which he ruins Europe with sadistic horror and lust for destruction, this Europe that will not bow to the Jew, but instead stands in the way of his path to world domination.

We National Socialists believe the Führer when he says that at the end of the battle, unleashed on us as his strongest adversary by the Jewish world parasite, the Jewish race in Europe will be destroyed. Until this destruction occurs, we must always remember that the Jew is our absolute enemy who will shrink at nothing. He knows but a single goal: our complete destruction.


http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/weltparasit.htm

[kahless]

You want to ask a person to renounce their religious belief? Including American citizens? You really have no place in the liberty movement. At all.

No, I was replying to what questions would you ask to determine if a person is Muslim if you were trying to stop them from entering the country. Some say they would lie about being asked if they are Muslim. But maybe some hardcore people of faith would not answer "yes" to the question about the prophet. So you would then have your answer if the person was lying about being Muslim and then deny their entry.

If you are speaking of questioning of people here. Well if they are publically advocating violent aspects of Sharia and for overthrowing our government, then questioning them is not really an issue is it.

[kahless]

This rhetoric sounds familiar.....

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/weltparasit.htm

19 pages before reaching the Goodwin's law post. Have a nice day. Bye bye.

[Ender]

19 pages before reaching the Goodwin's law post. Have a nice day. Bye bye.

You mean your finally going to stop talking about unconstitutional spying, investigating, and questioning of Americans?

Hallelujah!

[kahless]

You mean your finally going to stop talking about unconstitutional spying, investigating, and questioning of Americans?

Hallelujah!

No, it means I am done responding to your posts. With every one of your replies it is a complete mischaracterization of my comments or a major off topic leap. Your last post Hitler and now this one saying I support "unconstitutional spying" and questioning American citizens without cause. :rolleyes:

[Ender]

No, it means I am done responding to your posts. With every one of your replies it is a complete mischaracterization of my comments or a major off topic leap. Your last post Hitler and now this one saying I support "unconstitutional spying" and questioning American citizens? :rolleyes:

Good grief- have you read NOTHING of what the OP is about?


Gingrich’s proposal, which made no distinction between U.S. citizens and noncitizens, would violate scores of First Amendment-based Supreme Court rulings as well as civil rights laws that together bar discrimination on the basis of religion, entanglement by the government in religion and restrictions on freedom of expression and belief.


Specifically the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .

The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the attack in Nice as well as Gingrich’s call to “test” and deport Muslims in the United States.
“When former House speaker Newt Gingrich suggests that American Muslims be subjected to Inquisition-style religious test and then expelled from their homes and nation,” CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awaid said, “he plays into the hands of terror recruiters and betrays the American values he purports to uphold.”

[cajuncocoa]

//

[nikcers]

What part of "Ron Paul was right about blowback" that you do not understand? What does securing our borders have to do with non-intervention? Again, why are you and a few others here so hell bent on opening our borders to potential terrorists? What is your motivation and what do you expect to gain by it? Hmmm.

There is that broken window fallacy again. I'm not saying we don't need people to repair windows if we stop breaking windows. I'm saying we need to stop fucking breaking windows, and Trump or Clinton isn't going to do that, so we are going to get more broken windows and less freedom.

[kahless]

Good grief- have you read NOTHING of what the OP is about?

The OP posted an article from WAPO. a news organization with an agenda.

If they are publicly advocating violent aspects of Sharia and for overthrowing our government, then questioning them is within bounds of the Constitution.

[nikcers]

The OP posted an article from WAPO and news organization with an agenda.

If they are publicly advocating violent aspects of Sharia and for overthrowing our government, then questioning them is within bounds of the Constitution.

I think you have an agenda.

[kahless]

kahless, do you honestly believe that Ron or Rand Paul would agree with this approach to the problem?

Rand Paul proposed a ban on immigration from terrorist nations which included mostly Muslim countries. If it is necessary to take it a bit further and banning Muslims I do not have an issue with that and do give a damn if Ron/Rand do if it is necessary to enforce border security.

[nikcers]

Rand Paul proposed a ban on immigration from terrorist nations which included mostly Muslim countries. If it is necessary to take it a bit further and banning Muslims I do not have an issue with that and do give a damn if Ron/Rand do if it is necessary to enforce border security.

Don't lump Ron/Rand in with cheeto hitler.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Ender]

The OP posted an article from WAPO. a news organization with an agenda.

If they are publicly advocating violent aspects of Sharia and for overthrowing our government, then questioning them is within bounds of the Constitution.

YOU were praising Newt and this article & now you dismiss it?

SMDH

Here's a few more links to enjoy. One is Hannity with Gingrich- I'm sure you'll love that.



After Nice, Newt Gingrich wants to 'test' every Muslim in the US and deport sharia believers
Washington Post‎ - 1 day ago

Following the attack in Nice that killed at least 84 people, former House speaker Newt Gingrich has called for deporting everyone in America ...
Obama rejects 'repugnant' call to test Muslims
CNN‎ - 21 hours ago

Nice attack: Gingrich wants 'Sharia test' for US Muslims - BBC News
BBC News‎ - 5 hours ago

More news for Newt Gingrich wants to ‘test’ every Muslim in the U.S. and deported sharia believers
After Nice, Newt Gingrich wants to 'test' every Muslim in the U.S. and ...
www.santafenewmexican.com/...newt-gingrich-wants-to-test-...The Santa Fe New Mexican

18 hours ago - After Nice, Newt Gingrich wants to 'test' every Muslim in the U.S. and deport sharia believers By Melissa Etehad The Washington Post The ...
Obama rejects 'repugnant' call to test Muslims - CNNPolitics.com

www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/newt-gingrich-hannity-interview/
CNN

21 hours ago - ... Speaker Newt Gingrich's call for the U.S. to test every person with a Muslim background to see if they believe in Sharia law and deport those who do. ... or not that person really wants assimilation, really wants a new life, ...

Newt Gingrich: Deport All American Muslims Who Believe in Sharia ...
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/.../newt-gingrich-sharia.../491474/
The Atlantic
3 days ago - Gingrich's Outrageous Call to Deport All Practicing U.S. Muslims. The former speaker of the House wants to expel anyone who believes in sharia, a stance that ... We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe ... What would prevent a believer from simply lying?
On Fox, Newt Gingrich Calls For Testing And Deportation Of All ...
https://mediamatters.org/...newt-gingrich-calls-muslims...de...

Media Matters for America
2 days ago - We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim ... Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens. ... Fox's Newt Gingrich Wants To “Test” Airport Employees To See If They ... Fox's Gingrich Calls For New Version Of House Un-American .... Especially the true believers.
Newt Gingrich Wants To Deport Muslims Who Believe In Sharia ...
thinkprogress.org/.../2016/.../newt-gingrich-sharia-western-civilization/
ThinkProgress

1 day ago - Newt Gingrich Wants To Deport Muslims Who Believe In Sharia ... “We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim ... Trump, who has also called for banning Muslim immigration to the United States, embraces.
After Nice, Gingrich wants to 'test' U.S. Muslims and deport sharia ...
www.startribune.com/the-latest-gingrich-expects-to-hear.../386809801/

Star Tribune
1 day ago - After Nice, Newt Gingrich wants to 'test' U.S. Muslims and deport sharia ... Tim Tebow won't be at the Republican National Convention after all.
Newt Gingrich wants to 'test' every Muslim in U.S. and deport those ...
globalnews.ca/.../newt-gingrich-wants-to-test-every-muslim-in-u-s-and-deport-those-...
1 day ago - Newt Gingrich wants to 'test' every Muslim in U.S. and deport those who ... a Muslim background to see if they believe in Sharia law, and deport ...

[nikcers]

I know what Rand proposed. And I know that YOU don't have an issue with going further. The fact that you don't give a damn about Ron/Rand's opinion about going further, or the liberty position about going further tells me all I need to know. Thanks for the response. That said, you still haven't provided an adequate method of identifying Muslims.

They will develop a government smartphone app ala pokemon go, and mine peoples information with their consent to protect the border.

[kahless]

I know what Rand proposed. And I know that YOU don't have an issue with going further. The fact that you don't give a damn about Ron/Rand's opinion about going further, or the liberty position about going further tells me all I need to know. Thanks for the response. That said, you still haven't provided an adequate method of identifying Muslims.

Rand's plan is essentially a ban on Muslims without saying it and you know it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?498004-After-Nice-Newt-Gingrich-wants-to-%91test%92-every-Muslim-in-the-U-S-and-deport-sharia-believers&p=6263441&viewfull=1#post6263441

[nikcers]

Rand's plan is essentially a ban on Muslims without saying it and you know it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?498004-After-Nice-Newt-Gingrich-wants-to-%91test%92-every-Muslim-in-the-U-S-and-deport-sharia-believers&p=6263441&viewfull=1#post6263441

You are seeing what you want to see.

[kahless]

YOU were praising Newt and this article & now you dismiss it?

SMDH

Here's a few more links to enjoy. One is Hannity with Gingrich- I'm sure you'll love that.

Your posting more articles about Gingrich's comments are irrelevant. We already know what he said.

You said it was unconstitutional because of what WAPO told you. If they are publicly advocating violent aspects of Sharia and for overthrowing our government, then questioning them is within bounds of the Constitution regardless of what they say or any other Muslim advocacy organization.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[nikcers]

Rand Paul says his plan isn't the same as Trump's and both Ron and Rand condemn Trump for his comments. Ofcourse you know more about it right?

[kahless]

No, it is not. And YOU know it. I'm capable of reading the words as he said them. You're now spreading lies about Rand Paul.

If he is banning immigration from countries that are majority Muslim then it is a politically correct way of instituting a Muslim ban without saying it. Problem the best way to go about it without it getting knocked down by people like you so I agree with Rand on the approach. You do that first and then later sneak in a total Muslim ban while no one is paying attention.

[Ender]

Rand's plan is essentially a ban on Muslims without saying it and you know it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?498004-After-Nice-Newt-Gingrich-wants-to-%91test%92-every-Muslim-in-the-U-S-and-deport-sharia-believers&p=6263441&viewfull=1#post6263441

Rand has suggested a pause in immigration from countries where terrorism seems a threat. He is AGAINST banning people because of religion and NO WHERE has he said that we should be deporting American Muslims or spying on them & testing them.

[kahless]

Rand Paul says his plan isn't the same as Trump's and both Ron and Rand condemn Trump for his comments. Ofcourse you know more about it right?

Primary competition comments to building their following and for fund raising. Paul camp political rhetoric. See my last post, not much of a difference.

[nikcers]

If he is banning immigration from countries that are majority Muslim then it is a politically correct way of instituting a Muslim ban without saying it. Problem the best way to go about it without it getting knocked down by people like you so I agree with Rand on the approach. You do that first and then later sneak in a total Muslim ban while no one is paying attention.

How about we just stop arming bad people in the middle east and opposition groups and toppling secular dictators and expecting thomas jefferson to rise from the ashes. We can't keep creating terrorism and then complain about Muslims, when most of them don't want anything to do with us.

[nikcers]

Primary competition comments to building their following and for fund raising. Paul camp political rhetoric. See my last post, not much of a difference.

Nope he said something yesterday at freedomfest about Trumps comments.

[Ender]

Your posting more articles about Gingrich's comments are irrelevant. We already know what he said.

You said it was unconstitutional because of what WAPO told you. If they are publicly advocating violent aspects of Sharia and for overthrowing our government, then questioning them is within bounds of the Constitution regardless of what they say or any other Muslim advocacy organization.

And BTW- I've been saying this is unconstitutional because IT IS. WAPO has nothing to do with it.

[Ender]

How about we just stop arming bad people in the middle east and opposition groups and toppling secular dictators and expecting thomas jefferson to rise from the ashes. We can't keep creating terrorism and then complain about Muslims, when most of them don't want anything to do with us.

YA THINK? :rolleyes:

[kahless]

How about we just stop arming bad people in the middle east and opposition groups and toppling secular dictators and expecting thomas jefferson to rise from the ashes. We can't keep creating terrorism and then complain about Muslims, when most of them don't want anything to do with us.

This keeps coming up in the thread and of course I agree with that but still does not address the ideological problem with Islam-Sharia and immigration.

[nikcers]

This keeps coming up in the thread and of course I agree with that but still does not address the ideological problem with Islam-Sharia and immigration.

where are they coming from? The muslims aren't coming from mexico, they are coming from countries that don't exist anymore because of us.

[kahless]

where are they coming from? The muslims aren't coming from mexico, they are coming from countries that don't exist anymore because of us.

Earlier in the thread.


People on here want to argue that Muslim hostility towards the American people is due to blowback. I can't say that you're wrong, but it makes no difference.

I don't feel compelled to compromise my safety by allowing a culture which is hell bent on distributing some "blowback" into the U.S.A.

The argument makes no sense.

Man A says: Muslims are hostile to Americans so I don't want them in America.

Man B says: They're only hostile to Americans because of the American government's aggression in the Middle East, so we're obligated to allow them into America.

Man A says: That's about the craziest thing I've ever heard.

[kahless]

Nope he said something yesterday at freedomfest about Trumps comments.

Irrelevant. Like I said when you have a plan that bans immigration from countries that are predominantly Muslim than for all intents and purposes it is a ban on Muslims.

All the money and effort is going to Trump at this point and will continue to if he wins in November. The Pauls are doing what they need to do to maintain their relevance and keep their organizations and money flowing. That is catering to that anti-Trump segment with this rhetoric.

[nikcers]

Earlier in the thread.

If you are mad at yellow jackets stinging you and your family, is your first inclination to burn your neighbors house down, that's just going to make your neighbors have no where to live, the yellow jackets will just fly away and build a new nest. The yellow jackets will probably stop stinging us so much if we stop swatting their nest and let our neighbor deal with it. Our country is powerful enough to stop a few yellow jackets from coming all the way over to our house from across the street.

[CPUd]

https://i.imgur.com/vymXUny.png

https://i.imgur.com/9q0yYs1.jpg

[cajuncocoa]

//

[CPUd]

https://i.imgur.com/2X8GbeA.jpg

[kahless]

It would probably be best if you'd stop lying about his position on a website that bears his family name and has a subforum devoted to him.

Change "you'd" to "I" in above quote and it would be more accurate. Here are the details right on Rand's Senate website.

Sen. Rand Paul Introduces “SECURE Act” Amendment to Prevent Terrorists From Entering the U.S. as Refugees
SECURE Act: Stop Extremists Coming Under Refugee Entry Act
https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/sen-rand-paul-introduces-secure-act-amendment-to-prevent-terrorists-from-entering-the-us-as-refugees_


WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Rand Paul today introduced the Stop Extremists Coming Under Refugee Entry Act (SECURE Act) as an amendment to H.R.3761, Restoring American’s Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015. The legislation would suspend visa issuance for countries with a high risk of terrorism and impose a waiting period for background checks on visa issuance from other countries until the American people can be assured terrorists cannot enter the country through our immigration and visa system. This legislation is based off language first proposed by Sen. Paul in 2013. Sen. Paul introduced S.2329, the SECURE Act, as a stand-alone bill earlier this year.

Sen. Paul also introduced today three amendments to H.R.3761 that would restrict funding to resettle refugees in the U.S.

Top-line bullet points and background information for the SECURE Act offered as an amendment can be found below.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Enhances Screening for High-Risk Refugees

Designates 33 countries as “high-risk” and places an immediate moratorium on refugee and asylum approvals from those countries;
Within 30 days, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will provide to Congress a comprehensive assessment of the status of refugees and the screening process, including numbers and countries of origin, failed security checks, information on refugees that do not comply with requests related to security screening, or who cannot be located;
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall certify to Congress within 30 days that enhanced background checks and monitoring have been implemented, and that Congress has been supplied with all necessary information on the status of refugee screening;
Once the Secretary of Homeland Security has completed the 3 requirements below, Congress can review whether satisfactory progress has been made and hold a separate vote to resume approvals for refugees from high-risk countries.

Submit the DHS refugee screening assessment;
Certify that an enhanced screening capability has been implemented; and
Certify to the elimination of any existing security screening backlogs.

Improves Security in Non-Immigrant and Visa Waiver Travel

For all non-immigrant visas, the bill specifies that 30 days of security review are required prior to approval for entry to the United States;
For those from “high risk” countries, there is an immediate moratorium on approvals for entry to the United States until the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Director of National Intelligence jointly certify that a national security screening process is implemented, and that the new process significantly improves our ability to identify potential security risks.
Requires DHS to certify once it has completed and implemented the 1990’s requirement set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act for full biometric entry and exit tracking of U.S. visitors.
Once the certifications are made, Congress may consider resumption of regular approvals from high-risk countries.

Expands Enrollment Opportunities for Trusted Traveler Programs

Trusted travelers are not subject to additional security reviews once approved for enrollment;
DHS may accept and consider applications, and may approve qualified applicants, to enroll from any country;
DHS will give preference to applications for enrollment filed in order:

U.S. citizens;
U.S. legal permanent residents;
Citizens of Visa Waiver participant countries;
Aliens with significant documented travel history to and from the U.S.;
All remaining applicants.

All application fees collected by DHS for enrollment in a trusted traveler program are specifically designated to pay for the cost of enhanced screening.


List of countries subject to ban. Yep mostly Muslim countries.



6
(A) Afghanistan.
7
(B) Algeria.
8
(C) Bahrain.
9
(D) Bangladesh.
10
(E) Egypt.
11
(F) Eritrea.
12
(G) Indonesia.
13
(H) Iran.
14
(I) Iraq.
15
(J) Jordan.
16
(K) Kazakhstan.
17
(L) Kuwait.
18
(M) Kyrgyzstan.
19
(N) Lebanon.
20
(O) Libya.
21
(P) Mali.
22
(Q) Morocco.
23
(R) Nigeria.
24
(S) North Korea.
25
6
MDM15J02 S.L.C.
(T) Oman.
1
(U) Pakistan.
2
(V) Qatar.
3
(W) Russia.
4
(X) Saudi Arabia.
5
(Y) Somalia.
6
(Z) Sudan.
7
(AA) Syria.
8
(BB) Tajikistan.
9
(CC) Tunisia.
10
(DD) Turkey.
11
(EE) United Arab Emirates.
12
(FF) Uzbekistan.
13
(GG) Yemen.
14
(HH) The Palestinian Territories.

[Ender]

Change "you'd" to "I" in above quote and it would be more accurate. Here are the details right on Rand's Senate website.

Sen. Rand Paul Introduces “SECURE Act” Amendment to Prevent Terrorists From Entering the U.S. as Refugees
SECURE Act: Stop Extremists Coming Under Refugee Entry Act
https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/sen-rand-paul-introduces-secure-act-amendment-to-prevent-terrorists-from-entering-the-us-as-refugees_


List of countries subject to ban. Yep mostly Muslim countries.

This is Rand's bill to suspend visa issuance for countries with a high risk of terrorism and impose a waiting period for background checks on visa issuance from other countries until the American people can be assured terrorists cannot enter the country through our immigration and visa system. We all know about this bill.

Nothing in there says anything about continuous surveillance on Americans because of their religion.

That is what Newt is proposing and THAT is completely unconstitutional.

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Ender]

Your posting more articles about Gingrich's comments are irrelevant. We already know what he said.

You said it was unconstitutional because of what WAPO told you. If they are publicly advocating violent aspects of Sharia and for overthrowing our government, then questioning them is within bounds of the Constitution regardless of what they say or any other Muslim advocacy organization.

I am very familiar with the 1st Amendment. Don't need WAPO to tell me anything.

[nikcers]

Change "you'd" to "I" in above quote and it would be more accurate. Here are the details right on Rand's Senate website.

Sen. Rand Paul Introduces “SECURE Act” Amendment to Prevent Terrorists From Entering the U.S. as Refugees
SECURE Act: Stop Extremists Coming Under Refugee Entry Act
https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/sen-rand-paul-introduces-secure-act-amendment-to-prevent-terrorists-from-entering-the-us-as-refugees_


List of countries subject to ban. Yep mostly Muslim countries.

Rands bill and it's intent was something entirely different, you even posted it, thanks. This is Trumps idea in a nutshell. http://www.grimmy.com/images/MGG_Archive/MGG_2012/MGG-2012-09-17.gif


Enhances Screening for High-Risk Refugees


The Secretary of Homeland Security shall certify to Congress within 30 days that enhanced background checks and monitoring have been implemented, and that Congress has been supplied with all necessary information on the status of refugee screening;
Once the Secretary of Homeland Security has completed the 3 requirements below, Congress can review whether satisfactory progress has been made and hold a separate vote to resume approvals for refugees from high-risk countries.

[Pizzo]

What are you willing to do to any american citizen who is Muslim, but refuses to submit to this exam?

[Wooden Indian]

What are you willing to do to any american citizen who is Muslim, but refuses to submit to this exam?

Execute them to preserve White America, End Terrorism, and let Freedom Ring!

[Danke]

Execute them to preserve White America, End Terrorism, and let Freedom Ring!

Nah, just deport them to Canada.

[Wooden Indian]

Nah, just deport them to Canada.

You sound soft on Terrorism, friend. Maybe you forgot what this flag stands for. 'Merica, BABY! WOO!

[misterx]

Maybe we should make them wear stars? Build some camps...

False equivalency. Do you know what the founding fathers would have called a bunch of immigrants who want Sharia law instead of the US Constitution? An invasion. If they want Sharia they are welcome to it in their own countries.

[Ender]

False equivalency. Do you know what the founding fathers would have called a bunch of immigrants who want Sharia law instead of the US Constitution? An invasion. If they want Sharia they are welcome to it in their own countries.

Again- this is about surveillance of American Muslims who have lived here for years and have caused no problems. If we allow this to happen to Muslims, who's next? We have basically lost freedom of religion.

[Wilf]

Again- this is about surveillance of American Muslims who have lived here for years and have caused no problems. If we allow this to happen to Muslims, who's next? We have basically lost freedom of religion.

If that happened, could it be promoting more terrorism.:eek:

[CPUd]

Again- this is about surveillance of American Muslims who have lived here for years and have caused no problems. If we allow this to happen to Muslims, who's next? We have basically lost freedom of religion.

This sounds like something a Soros-funded PC SJW would say.

[Ender]

This sounds like something a Soros-funded PC SJW would say.

Of course- we all know that Soros-funded PC SJWs believe in the Constitution. ;)

[Ender]

If that happened, could it be promoting more terrorism.:eek:

Something the West is good at, it seems. :rolleyes:

[Wilf]

Something the West is good at, it seems. :rolleyes:
Yup, is Newt Gingrich promoting islamic terrorism ?

[Ender]

Yup, is Newt Gingrich promoting islamic terrorism ?

We shall wait and see..........

[69360]

False equivalency. Do you know what the founding fathers would have called a bunch of immigrants who want Sharia law instead of the US Constitution? An invasion. If they want Sharia they are welcome to it in their own countries.

I haven't noticed a single post here in favor of sharia. In fact most seem to be fairly skeptical of islam.

What you are advocating is institutionalized religious persecution and racism. That can't happen, you can't have our government persecuting because of religion. Can't some of you see why? What if your race or religion is next. You can't ban an entire race or religion for the actions of some.

I don't expect to see some drivel here about how I am a leftist etc. I would tend to agree that muslims are more likely to commit terrorism. Doesn't mean that all of them are and I'm sure there are decent upstanding ones. I'm also fine with halting immigration from terror hotbed countries until this is all sorted out.

[kahless]

Again- this is about surveillance of American Muslims who have lived here for years and have caused no problems. If we allow this to happen to Muslims, who's next? We have basically lost freedom of religion.

More hyperbole. We have not lost freedom of religion. Again you and several others are giving aid and comfort to those here and those that wish to come here that desire to eliminate individual liberty.

If you have a group of people publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology, the right thing to do is surveillance and if here on visa round them up and send them back.

[kahless]

I haven't noticed a single post here in favor of sharia.

You and others are consistently opposing surveillance of those publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology. There are posts in this thread basically demanding that we allow those same types to come here.

That is not only favoring Sharia it is giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

[tod evans]

You and others are consistently opposing surveillance of those publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology. There are posts in this thread basically demanding that we allow those same types to come here.

That is not only favoring Sharia it is giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

Well fuck yeah!

If you or anybody else supports government surveillance of anybody within the US borders you're wrong!

I'll back you 100% if you want to get off your ass and run the evil Muslims out of your town/county or state but I'll damn sure fight you tooth-n-nail if you want to excuse or empower government surveillance of anyone, including known "terrorists"...

[kahless]

Well fuck yeah!

If you or anybody else supports government surveillance of anybody within the US borders you're wrong!

I'll back you 100% if you want to get off your ass and run the evil Muslims out of your town/county or state but I'll damn sure fight you tooth-n-nail if you want to excuse or empower government surveillance of anyone, including known "terrorists"...

You are basically saying they can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot use surveillance against them or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.

[tod evans]

You are basically saying they can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot use surveillance against them or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.

I DO NOT support federalized surveillance or federalized equality/tolerance/acceptance in any way shape or form.

Don't even try to twist that into being "un-American" or some such bullshit.

Everything the federal government gets involved in it fucks up, everything!

And you're calling on granting them more authority? Are you fucking nuts?

[tod evans]

You are basically saying they can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia

No!

I very clearly said;



I'll back you 100% if you want to get off your ass and run the evil Muslims out of your town/county or state but I'll damn sure fight you tooth-n-nail if you want to excuse or empower government surveillance of anyone, including known "terrorists"...

How in the Sam-Hell can you twist that into what you typed?

Stop crying for government to pick up your mantle...

[kahless]

I DO NOT support federalized surveillance or federalized equality/tolerance/acceptance in any way shape or form.

Don't even try to twist that into being "un-American" or some such bullshit.

Everything the federal government gets involved in it fucks up, everything!

And you're calling on granting them more authority? Are you fucking nuts?

I used to think people here were like me, Paul supporters against bulk data collection surveillance of American citizens and rather require to the government to use warrants through FISA courts for those deemed a threat. It however looks like we have quite a few here where something more sinister is the belief system.

What you are basically saying is the enemy can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot allow the government to use surveillance against those type or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.

[tod evans]

I used to think people here were like me, Paul supporters against bulk data collection surveillance of American citizens and rather require to the government to use warrants through FISA courts for those deemed a threat. It however looks like we have quite a few here where something more sinister is the belief system.

What you are basically saying is the enemy can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot allow the government to use surveillance against those type or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.

Are you really this dense?

Or is it that you're really that scared of the evil Muslims?

Could it be you've accepted Fed-Gov as your lord and master and prefer to petition it for redress?


I'm refusing to accept Fed-Gov as anything good, I'm advising that people handle such matters as you raise locally.

If the matter is brought to Fed-Gov's attention it should not be to ask permission.

[69360]

You and others are consistently opposing surveillance of those publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology. There are posts in this thread basically demanding that we allow those same types to come here.

That is not only favoring Sharia it is giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

Why don't you just admit you hate muslims? It'll be a lot easier from here forward. I won't condemn you for it. It's certainly your right. You can hate anyone you want to. Our government can't.

[Pizzo]

We all know that the Fed Gov would only label actual terrorists as such, not people with Gadsden flags or Ron Paul bumper stickers....

[phill4paul]

We all know that the Fed Gov would only label actual terrorists as such, not people with Gadsden flags or Ron Paul bumper stickers....

Exactly. I think AF said something to the effect that this whole forum is a thought crime in progress. I don't care to trade freedom, for anyone, for security.

[kahless]

You and others are consistently opposing surveillance of those publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology. There are posts in this thread basically demanding that we allow those same types to come here.

That is not only favoring Sharia it is giving aid and comfort to terrorists.


Why don't you just admit you hate muslims? It'll be a lot easier from here forward. I won't condemn you for it. It's certainly your right. You can hate anyone you want to. Our government can't.

So Rand hates Muslims to now to. :rolleyes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-pushes-back-on-calls-for-more-surveillance/

"I think surveillance, though, has a fairly low threshold for individuals," Paul said. "Yes we should follow people who are a risk. Should we talk to their neighbors and friends, should we talk to their Imam, sure all of that is legitimate.
tod evans, Rand is as dense as I am I guess.