Sicilianthing

A Day will come when you send them all back to their Desert Shit Hole,

You will Hold Congress Accountable for the next Murdering event - WARNING !

Read Every Word Carefully !


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Newt is Right on Repatriating Muslims

WRITTEN BY: BRYAN FISCHER

by Taboola Sponsored Links From The Web

Eighty-four people in France are dead this morning, killed by a Muslim truck driver by the name of Muhammad. Although Muhammad was a known street thug and criminal, French authorities insist they had no indication that he had been radicalized. That™s small comfort to the families of the latest victims of jihad.

According to The Religion of Peace website, in 2016 alone there have been a staggering total of 1268 attacks in the name of Allah, in 50 different countries, leaving an unconscionable death toll of 11,664 and a casualty account of 14,087 injured.

Newt Gingrichs response is that we must test every Muslim in America. Those who believe in sharia law need to be returned to their native land. In other words, if any Muslim comes to America and does not wish to fully assimilate, he needs to find another country to call home.

Newt is right about sharia law. Sharia law is fundamentally contrary to every historic and classic American value, and is diametrically opposed to the Constitution. In sharia, there is absolutely no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of peaceable assembly, and no freedom to petition the government for the redress of grievances. There are no equal rights for women, and slavery is still alive and well in many Muslim countries around the world with the full approval of the Quran.

In other words, œMuslim American is an oxymoron. We should insist that in every case in which Muslim values clash with American values, the immigrant must choose American values and reject Muslim ones. If an immigrant wishes to remain a Muslim first and an American second, then we should happily help him find the Muslim nation of his choice and help him and his family relocate. Most Americans will be happy to do so at taxpayer expense.

It is not a problem for an American to say he is a Christian first and an American second, because this is a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian values. The more devout a Christian becomes, the more he will love America and the values on which it was founded. The stronger his Christian faith becomes, the more of a patriot he will be.

The reverse is true for someone of the Muslim faith. The values of his religion are fundamentally incompatible with American values, and the more devout he becomes in his Muslim faith, the more of a threat to our national security he becomes.

Major Nidal Hassan, who killed 14 soldiers at Fort Hood and wounded 33 more, is a case in point. He killed his fellow-soldiers precisely because he was a Muslim first and an American second. He could not bear the thought of being part of a military which would send soldiers to Afghanistan to fight his fellow Muslims. And over a dozen Americans died as a result.

Can Muslim immigration be restricted constitutionally?

Of course. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives unilateral authority to Congress to set whatever immigration parameters it wishes.

While there is a ban on the use of a religious test to hold office in the federal government, there is no such prohibition with regard to immigration.

Congress is free to prohibit immigration to those who represent a threat to our national security for any reason, religious or otherwise. It can constitutionally prohibit immigration to those who adhere to the ideology of Islam just as it still to this day prohibits immigration to those who adhere to the ideology of communism.

Is banning Muslim immigration a strong step to take? Yes. Is repatriating Muslims who refuse to assimilate a strong step? Yes. Are they necessary steps? Newt thinks they are, and I agree with him. If we don™t want every city in America to become Nice, we have no time to lose.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author™s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

bahmer

Here is some writings of Locke and Jefferson Jefferson being a founding father.

Second, the toleration proposed by John Locke in his A Letter Concerning Toleration has, as its context, first and foremost, the toleration that ought to be extended by Christian sects to each other. While he certainly advocates that the same civil rights be extended to Jews, pagans, and “Mahometans”—he articulates several very clearly defined exceptions. Specifically, in a section dealing with those whom the civil magistrate cannot tolerate, he pinpoints:

Those whose religious opinions are contrary to “those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society” (1796, p. 53);
The religion that “teaches expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise” (p. 54);
“[T]hose that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion…and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long, until they find themselves strong enough to [seize the government]” (p. 55);
All those who see themselves as having allegiance to another civil authority (p. 56). Specifically, Locke gives the example of the Muslim who lives among Christians and would have difficulty submitting to the government of a “Christian nation” when he comes from a Muslim country where the civil magistrate was also the religious authority. Locke notes that such a person would have grave difficulty serving as a soldier in his adopted nation (cf. the 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree by a Muslim soldier who shouted, “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire, killing 13 and wounding 32; see Stewart, 2010).
“[T]hose are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God” (p. 56).
Four of these five exceptions inarguably describe Muslim behavior across the world since the inception of Islam. Indeed, what Hutson fails to divulge is that much of Locke’s discussion of religious intolerance (manifested primarily by Catholicism during periods of English history) resembles the very intolerance that typically characterizes Islamic countries around the world.

Hutson further alleges that Thomas Jefferson adopted Locke’s view of toleration (which, as just noted, was not an endorsement or encouragement of Islam), “in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the ‘Mahamdan.’” While it is true that Jefferson championed religious rights for all men, he did so with the same reservations and exceptions set forth by Locke. Evidence of his view of Islamic aggression is seen in his revulsion of the Muslim terrorism that characterized the Barbary States leading up to and during his presidency. His “intolerant” response was to send the U.S. Marines against them (Miller, 1997). It is true that, in his autobiography, Jefferson stated that the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination” (1821, p. 40). Yet, even that document verifies the clearly Christian orientation of the assemblage of Founders who passed it, and the distinction they made between religious toleration versus incorporating non-Christian religion into the fabric of America’s civil institutions. The statute begins:

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do… (Jefferson, 1786, emp. added).

Bshaw

Problem: when questioning them, it is legal for them to lie to infidels under Shari law, in fact, required I think.

bahmer

Your right it is required. Just ship them and all of the MSM out together to a sandy desert spot in the middle east somewhere far far away.

Sicilianthing

>>>>>

No compromise on these Scumbags, you may not be there yet, but you will soon be and I can say that with 100% guarantee!

Sicilianthing

>>>

Bingo !

Big Bass

It depends how you "question" them. Do it right and they'll sing like canaries.

Sicilianthing

>>>>>>

Prettymuch and start Random Inspections of all the Mosque's and Training camps..

Remove local, county and State Officials aiding & abetting...
ScumBag Resettlement zones
Sanctuary cities for more Dirtbags...

GAME OVER !