It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Newt Gingrich Says We Should ‘Test Every Person’ Of Muslim Descent

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014
Umm, there is a thing called "due process." What you are talking about is anti-constitutional. You would need an amendment nullifying the 4th and 5th amendments. Do you want to have a convention with that as your platform?

You would also be suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

I understand that people get crazy when they have a great fear. Be afraid of something worth while, like auto accidents, which kill more American people each year than all the Islamic terrorism has in the US's 230 year entire history.




posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Most any real psychopath will be able to beat a verbal exam.

Only other psychopaths would be able to question them properly. I nominate Newt for that grimy tedious job.
edit on 15-7-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Testing Muslim decent? Dumb idea.

Considering actual proof a person communicating with enemies of the state that declared war on America as a whole treason or sedition is not so hard to reconcile constituionally.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Why isn't this an open-and-shut matter, especially here???

We don't have religious tests for anything regarding government, least of all citizenship.

NEXT!



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I don't think we should test anyone. Just close the border to immigrants from the middle east until we get some processes in place so we can properly vet people.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

How about we just ban all religion? It's caused nothing but divisiveness, violence and wars in this world. Their churches reap the benefits of taxpayer"s services while the community has to pick-up for their tax exempt status! In the mean time, they continue to raise thousands of dollars from their followers and community events.

The "Golden Rule" is all humanity needs to follow.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Why isn't this an open-and-shut matter, especially here???

We don't have religious tests for anything regarding government, least of all citizenship.

NEXT!


Because violating amendments is en vogue when it is the "others" that you are suppressing rights for, just don't suppress any white people's rights.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

It's not like this is the first time a minority group of immigrants have policed their own. The Italians food or when they came. The Chinese did it as well. Hell, it was the original purpose of urban gangs. And for the most part the authorities didn't care until these groups started applying their standards and practices to people outside their group.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   



originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: windword

How about we just ban all religion? It's caused nothing but divisiveness, violence and wars in this world.


Then we'd have to ban all social groups, political parties, governments.


edit on 15-7-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
And here I thought people wanted a bigger more controlling government.



Guess I was wrong.




posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TinfoilTP

What does PC have to do with it?

Apparently it is ok to advocate for the targeting of people based on their religion. Guess we forgot about the principles that founded this nation and what protects people from being persecuted.


Newt said "“We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”

His criteria is those who openly wish to replace the constitution with Sharia. That is incompatible with the existence of the United States. Sharia cannot exist with our Constitution and our nation cannot exist under Sharia. They enter the country with a militant and political objective to mount gorilla warfare against the government and civilians, no different than letting a foreign special forces unit into your nation to raise a gorilla army to wage war against you.

It is illegal to allow such an invasion.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Giving aid and comfort by allowing enemies to levy war in our lands is definitely something that is happening before our very eyes.

Newt defines the enemy well in Muslims who promote Sharia Law. Simple definition with legal ramifications. Sharia Law is the political arm of the enemy directly opposing the democratic republic established by the Constitution of the US, promoting Sharia Law is waging war.

Those Muslims who do not agree that Sharia is a political system of rule but just a religious guide for daily life are not waging war. Newt attacks no religion in his statement.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
His criteria is those who openly wish to replace the constitution with Sharia. That is incompatible with the existence of the United States. Sharia cannot exist with our Constitution and our nation cannot exist under Sharia. They enter the country with a militant and political objective to mount gorilla warfare against the government and civilians, no different than letting a foreign special forces unit into your nation to raise a gorilla army to wage war against you.


There definitely is cause for the discussion. But to imply doing it to every Muslim already in the US, the millions of them, is crazy 1984. Upon entrance exam, now that's a whole different story, and quite frankly, that something like this wasn't the method since the Cold War, well wasn't there?
edit on 15-7-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Exactly. Isn't newt part of ccofc which is a racist organization?

I think if you are communicating with an enemy of the state it should be easy to get a warrant to find out the depth of the communication and it should land a treason or sedition charge if found to be giving aid to a group who had declared the us an enemy and is carrying out acts of violence.

I think there is a clear definition if you use the group declared an enemy of the state is committing public violence and declaring publlicalky the intension to do so. That isn't free speech.

Muslim tests are as constituionally wrong as possible. The forefathers made great effort to not call America a Christian nation for the purpose diplomacy of Muslim (Mohammedan)
Nations.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I think we should test EVERY person, of any descent.

We should have a test for citizenship.

For citizenship to actually mean anything, it would have to not be automatic and based on birth.

I think all residents should have basic rights, but citizenship should be open only to those who have shown themselves to be positive participants and contributors to civic welfare.

Make citizenship dependent on military service and service on jury duty. Then all citizens, and ONLY citizens, have the right to bear arms.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Gryphon66
I think if you are communicating with an enemy of the state it should be easy to get a warrant to find out the depth of the communication and it should land a treason or sedition charge if found to be giving aid to a group who had declared the us an enemy and is carrying out acts of violence.


That needs to be done with the entire ruling establishment. I nominate Newt for being amongst the first to be investigated.
edit on 15-7-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

This is bs. Everything that Newt said is unconstitutional and there aren't Muslims trying to replace our laws with Sharia Laws... When you say that it shows a super misunderstanding of what Sharia Law is and what it applies to. Muslims would be no more successful implementing their religious laws in this country than Christians getting the ten commandments implemented. Looking at all the pushback Christians get, to honestly even think that Muslims could have a shot at doing it is down right ludicrous thinking.
edit on 15-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Newt is not a moron but he is dead wrong in testing.
You could pay the same logic to many religious groups incompatibility. The Amish live in their own little world.
The point is dont get hysterical.

I do think if a person is communicating with Isis or enemies of the state and the communications are in the realm of treason and sedition there is no need to pusyfoot around. It's not free speech to plot the destruction of the us.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: redempsh


I think we should test EVERY person, of any descent.

We should have a test for citizenship.

For citizenship to actually mean anything, it would have to not be automatic and based on birth.

I think all residents should have basic rights, but citizenship should be open only to those who have shown themselves to be positive participants and contributors to civic welfare.

Make citizenship dependent on military service and service on jury duty. Then all citizens, and ONLY citizens, have the right to bear arms.


Eh? So what happens if as a person born in the states, fails this citizenship test? Then what do you do? Where do you live? That poor person is now stateless. The government can't deport them anywhere, they can't get any government benefits, cannot work, cannot get a house, cannot really do much of anything.
edit on 15-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
If groups like that start mass attacking every week or so then sure, test them too.



But they aren't. You have more of a chance of being shot and killed by a police officer (no matter what race you are) than getting killed by a terrorist. ISIS or otherwise.


While that is true, attacks like France are different in that it isn't just loss of life, but entire sections of cities and infrastructure get shut down. Logistically it is a mess, and does more damage in that respect than a cop shooting.



edit on 15-7-2016 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're a resident, and can stay here unless you also fail a sanity test, like say the mmpi



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join