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

[Thor]

To me the only logical solution seems to be viewing government and her terrorists as one in the same.

Your neighbors, and mine, who work for Fed-Gov have brought this issue to our doorsteps.

How, when and if any of us choose to address the issue should never be discussed within reach of their surveillance...

Ok, fair enough. So you agree there is a problem with Islam and it's directives? As a few on these threads feel that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and mean no harm, despite the evidence to the contrary. That Islam does not want to take over the world and have everyone follow Islam or be killed. That is my issue. They do not want to coexist peaceful based upon their directives from the Quran. Sure, they can assimilate and be peaceful in a minority, but as soon as they are able to outgrow minority status, that changes. And that is the threat the Liberty. And why we need to defend Liberty.

So are you arguing what approach is best to deal with the issue of Islam, and you are not in favor of the Fed doing that given they will abuse it, or do you not agree there is a problem to begin with? I have not read all posts in this thread... Sorry.

I want people to be free to do as they wish, as long as it does not harm another, or want to restrict another from the same freedom. Islam does not feel that way. They have hard and fast rules that must be obeyed. And anyone who is a Muslim or subscribes to Islam must recognize that, even if they are of a light "sect" or not.

And I agree the the Fed has enabled many of these issues and problems we face, and is not a friend to Liberty most of the time either. And to ask for their help to these issues has it's own level of pitfalls.

But grouping both the enabler (Fed) and the terrorist into a common enemy, makes the task far more insurmountable. If there is a way to protect Liberty from the threat of Islam, and not use the Fed to do it, I am open to that. But fighting 2 battles at once... well, damn. So I again ask, are we doomed to either a tyrannical big brother police state, or an all-out religious war, or both?

 

[tod evans]

I think having an Iraq within the US would happen way too quickly moving immigration controls to the states at this point. When things start falling a part however that probably will be the way to go. Homogeneity worked for a long time with federal immigration controls until they started messing things up in the last 50 or so years.



Well one thing you are right on is that I totally misread this quote as, "I am hell bent against securing your freedom to effectively remove any type of people you find offensive". Which is why mistakenly lumped you in with Ender and 6930 who were pushing the intolerance accusations.

My bad, sorry about that which caused things to go south after that. Just ignore a couple of the replies after that.

It very well might.

But without Fed-Gov in the mix that state(s) will have a very difficult go of it.

Judging by folks in these parts Fed money is the only reason a whole lot of problems exist in the US today.

People are generally good, they'll help one another, strangers too, until someone pisses in their Cheerios...

Fed-Gov insists on holding your bowl and their dick before you're served.....I don't see the need.

And Thank You for the apology!

 

[phill4paul]

Ok, fair enough. So you agree there is a problem with Islam and it's directives? As a few on these threads feel that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and mean no harm, despite the evidence to the contrary. That Islam does not want to take over the world and have everyone follow Islam or be killed. That is my issue. They do not want to coexist peaceful based upon their directives from the Quran. Sure, they can assimilate and be peaceful in a minority, but as soon as they are able to outgrow minority status, that changes. And that is the threat the Liberty. And why we need to defend Liberty.

So are you arguing what approach is best to deal with the issue of Islam, and you are not in favor of the Fed doing that given they will abuse it, or do you not agree there is a problem to begin with? I have not read all posts in this thread... Sorry.

I want people to be free to do as they wish, as long as it does not harm another, or want to restrict another from the same freedom. Islam does not feel that way. They have hard and fast rules that must be obeyed. And anyone who is a Muslim or subscribes to Islam must recognize that, even if they are of a light "sect" or not.

And I agree the the Fed has enabled many of these issues and problems we face, and is not a friend to Liberty most of the time either. And to ask for their help to these issues has it's own level of pitfalls.

But grouping both the enabler (Fed) and the terrorist into a common enemy, makes the task far more insurmountable. If there is a way to protect Liberty from the threat of Islam, and not use the Fed to do it, I am open to that. But fighting 2 battles at once... well, damn. So I again ask, are we doomed to either a tyrannical big brother police state, or an all-out religious war, or both?

On a day to day basis how much does Sharia law influence your life compared to government regulation? At what point do you say to yourself "Muslims aren't the problem, they are a distraction?" In the span of a decade those wearing government uniforms have killed more than "terrorists" have. There are between 2-7 million Muslims in the U.S. right now. We aren't in any danger of being overthrown. The Fed/State/Local gov. employees...add that up. Then we will talk about "Danger, will Robinson."

 

[LibertyEagle]

On a day to day basis how much does Sharia law influence your life compared to government regulation? At what point do you say to yourself "Muslims aren't the problem, they are a distraction?" In the span of a decade those wearing government uniforms have killed more than "terrorists" have. There are between 2-7 million Muslims in the U.S. right now. We aren't in any danger of being overthrown. The Fed/State/Local gov. employees...add that up. Then we will talk about "Danger, will Robinson."

Again, if someone lit your house on fire, if you were sane, you'd first put out the fire and then go after the person(s) who set it. Yes, the government caused the problem, but that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't need to be rectified along with getting the government back within its constitutional boundaries (or to secede from the union).

 

[erowe1]

(or to secede from the union).

So you're also for destroying the country now?

 

[CPUd]

 

[phill4paul]

Again, if someone lit your house on fire, if you were sane, you'd first put out the fire and then go after the person(s) who set it. Yes, the government caused the problem, but that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't need to be rectified along with getting the government back within its constitutional boundaries (or to secede from the union).

Who set the house on fire? Muslims and South American Immigrants or the Federal Government? Muslims and South American immigrants have not gotten us where we are at right now. They don't have the numbers ( as a national total ), never did and won't for at least a couple of centuries.

I personally like the idea of secession. I've pretty much done so as much as I can as an individual. I pay a local property tax but have not payed state or Fed for over 6 yrs. I'm actually doing something about it. And I'm committed.

However, many on this forum would label me an "anarchist" or "un-American." I'm not saying you would. Just some that would take the idea of actually breaking with the idea of a Federal Government that steals from it's citizens as well as borrow from the banks and charge the citizens the interest, to fund the shit we do.

It's a big mess, that it is. But, there is nothing out there that scares me more than this government. Not Muslims, not "illegal" aliens, not the Bloods or the Crips or MS-13. Not the Outlaws, not the Hell's Angels, not a black man, not even Trump supporters.

 

[tod evans]

Ok, fair enough. So you agree there is a problem with Islam and it's directives? As a few on these threads feel that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and mean no harm, despite the evidence to the contrary. That Islam does not want to take over the world and have everyone follow Islam or be killed. That is my issue. They do not want to coexist peaceful based upon their directives from the Quran. Sure, they can assimilate and be peaceful in a minority, but as soon as they are able to outgrow minority status, that changes. And that is the threat the Liberty. And why we need to defend Liberty.

So are you arguing what approach is best to deal with the issue of Islam, and you are not in favor of the Fed doing that given they will abuse it, or do you not agree there is a problem to begin with? I have not read all posts in this thread... Sorry.

I want people to be free to do as they wish, as long as it does not harm another, or want to restrict another from the same freedom. Islam does not feel that way. They have hard and fast rules that must be obeyed. And anyone who is a Muslim or subscribes to Islam must recognize that, even if they are of a light "sect" or not.

And I agree the the Fed has enabled many of these issues and problems we face, and is not a friend to Liberty most of the time either. And to ask for their help to these issues has it's own level of pitfalls.

But grouping both the enabler (Fed) and the terrorist into a common enemy, makes the task far more insurmountable. If there is a way to protect Liberty from the threat of Islam, and not use the Fed to do it, I am open to that. But fighting 2 battles at once... well, damn. So I again ask, are we doomed to either a tyrannical big brother police state, or an all-out religious war, or both?

I have no knowledge of Muslims, don't know any and am absolutely unqualified to judge one let along a whole batch.

That said........Foreigners here in the Ozarks come from their cities, they bring their city ways and their city ideas, usually within 4-5 years they either acclimate or leave..I'd imagine Muslims would be the same.

Honestly though it doesn't matter, the Fed-Gov and her enforcers have changed the character of these hills over the last 40 odd years to where city folk actually feel safe roaming around and trying to exert influence..

Having lived here both with and without Feds and Fed money my opinion is that the Feds offer more trouble than merit..

I'm sure people in the cities or on the coasts feel differently and I don't want my feeling or behavior to affect them any more than I want their behavior to affect me...

To me the issue at large is the Fed-Gov more-so than the Muslims or Mexicans or any other race or religion....Without Fed-Gov to protect and support these newcomers they too would have to acclimate or leave..

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Newt may have more to work with , Drudge is reporting NOI membership for most recent suspected terrorist :

Baton Rouge Shooter Gavin Long Was Nation Of Islam Member...






Related

Head of Cleveland Police Union on Baton Rouge: Obama Has ‘Blood on His Hands’

by Josh Feldman | 1:09 pm, July 17th, 2016

The head of a Cleveland police union reacted to the shooting of multiple officers in Baton Rouge by going off on President Obama and a media culture that helps boost anti-cop narratives.

Detective Steve Loomis said that the shootings of police officers, from Dallas to now, started with what he deemed as a completely false narrative concerning the death of Alton Sterling.
He said that Obama has “validated the false narrative and the nonsense that Black Lives Matter and the media are pressing out there,” and he said the president has “blood on his hands” that he won’t be able to wash off.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/head-of-c...-on-his-hands/
​

 

[LibertyEagle]

So you're also for destroying the country now?

Not at all. However, if enough Communists and their useful idiots keep at it, there may be little choice left to survive what is coming.

 

[erowe1]

Not at all. However, if enough Communists and their useful idiots keep at it, there may be little choice left to survive what is coming.

But when someone you disagree with says that, you claim they are want to destroy the country.

 

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[erowe1]

I'm not sure you're understanding LE at all, erowe. (It's not secession that destroys the country.) Let me help.

• If you want to allow non-white people to cross our borders, you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.
• If you want to allow non-white culture to mix with "ours", you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.
• If you think it's OK our country to trade with countries where non-white people live, you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to cajuncocoa again."

And may you not be banned for speaking this truth.

 

[silverhandorder]

I'm not sure you're understanding LE at all, erowe. (It's not secession that destroys the country.) Let me help.

• If you want to allow non-white people to cross our borders, you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.
• If you want to allow non-white culture to mix with "ours", you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.
• If you think it's OK our country to trade with countries where non-white people live, you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.

That is a false characterization of the issue. I think you are doing this on purpose.

For me personally I am on with closed or open borders. What I am not Ok is with leftists lying about people who want to control the borders to only let in the best people.

 

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[Smitty]

John Derbyshire has just released a short essay on the matter. It pretty much reflects my opinion on the situation.

Worth a read:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/after-the-atrocity-in-nice/

excerpt:

I have never read the Koran and at this point I most likely never shall. It looks really boring. I can’t offer an informed opinion about Islam, any more than 99.9 percent of other Americans can. I certainly don’t wish any harm to Muslims in general. Jolly good luck to them all. Hate? Not here.

But t is surely obvious that if you let masses of Muslims settle in your non-Muslim country, you’ve gotten yourself some frictions and problems you didn’t have before. Why bring such troubles on yourself?

Yet we keep doubling down. There’s a sickness here, some kind of civilizational sickness.Chiang Kai-shek, quoted above, was correct about the Chinese Communists, as the tens of millions of victims of their tyranny would testify, if they could.

Similarly today in the Western world. I don’t mean to speak lightly of the horror we saw on our TV screens Thursday. But these assaults are a disease of the skin. They’re not going to destroy our nations, not by themselves, not even in they happen once a week. They’re a disease of the skin.

The real menace, the disease eating away at the heart of Western society, is white ethnomasochism: hatred of one’s own type, one’s own race, one’s own ancestors, one’s own parents, one’s own fellow citizens who do not share a bizarrely unreal and idealistic view of human nature.

 

[erowe1]

The real menace, the disease eating away at the heart of Western society, is white ethnomasochism: hatred of one’s own type, one’s own race, one’s own ancestors, one’s own parents, one’s own fellow citizens who do not share a bizarrely unreal and idealistic view of human nature.[/i]

What kind of skewed self-imposed blindness can make someone think this way?

Not being a white nationalist does not equal hating white people.

 

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[willwash]

So- no 1st Amendment for you, amirite?

Not really. Sharia itself is the biggest violation of the 1st Amendment of all and is therefore not to be tolerated in our country.

 

[erowe1]

Not really. Sharia itself is the biggest violation of the 1st Amendment of all and is therefore not to be tolerated in our country.

How about if you just don't tolerate it on your own property, and be a noninterventionist when it comes to what rules others want to impose on themselves on their property?