“Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. 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. 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.”
When asked how we could know if they had given that up, he replied:
“The first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they’re doing on the Internet. The third step is, let me be very clear, you have to monitor the mosques. I mean, if you’re not prepared to monitor the mosques, this whole thing is a joke. Where do you think the primary source of recruitment is? Where do you think the primary place of indoctrination is? You’ve got to look at the madrassas - if you’re a school which is teaching Sharia, you want to expel it from the country.”
Before debating his goal, let's be clear on what's being called for.
A repeal of the 1st amendment. Because now religious tests would have to be gave to all citizens, they'd have to describe their deeply personal views to a government examiner, and be quizzed over whether any aspect of their faith was "incompatible" with our "civilization". Which means a tossing out of the 5th amendment, too. You know, the person's right against self-incrimination.
Our free speech would have to be monitored and overseen to make sure we were not speaking or writing in a way to suggest that we were holding "wrong" thoughts. So I guess that's the 4th amendment tossed out, too.
Back to the 1st amendment, though also the 4th, Churches would be places where surveillance, either audio/video recorders, paid agents or both would be there to insure nothing improper was being preached from the pulpit.
Private religious schools would also have that treatment, to make sure nothing was being taught inappropriately.
Now. There's the price. What's the goal? What do we get for that rather high price?
To apparently keep the minute percent of Islamic citizens from taking over our nation, and re-writing all our cherished laws so that we could not speak or worship in privacy! To make sure that they didn't set up some system where there was no protection against search and seizures and self-incrimination! To avoid living in some Islamic hell where we would be required to give up our Constitutional rights!
Hmm.
Apparently then Newt Gingrich is worried about our rights being murdered, so proposes we commit suicide on those rights first! If we kill ourselves, the Islamic folk can't murder us! If we give up all our rights now, then a Caliphate can't take them away later!
No, thank you.
I know - some of you may honestly believe that some here are shooting for a Caliphate, and you worry about that. That's fine. But we must all surely agree that however we combat that potential danger, that we do not vote ourselves into a certain danger in the meanwhile!
Our nation of 330,000,000 being taken over such few Muslims are here - around 3.3 million - is highly unlikely. Mormons, who make up 2% of the population, or between 6 and 7 million, once tried a war of virtual secession (The Utah War) and lost. So it's just improbable to the point of impossibility to assume the Muslims can succeed not in simply seceding some where, but in taking over the whole of the nation!
So we are being asked by Newt to 100% give up our freedom - to avoid the infinitesimally small chance of the Muslims taking our freedoms later!
That's a poor bet. And expressed as a bet, it would be like Newt asking you to pay him $1,000 now - to protect you from any small infant who may in the future try to rob you of...$1,000! Or paying an insurance company $100,000 so that if your $100,000 house is hit by a meteorite, they'll give you a $100,000 house!
It's a suckers bet, and the man offering it is not stupid, but only hoping you are. He wants your freedoms - because that means he has more power. He wants you to be scared enough to give up those freedoms, so he can exact his authority over a group he does not like. Men like Newt don't always hold specific office, but they are always in the corridors of power.
It is NOT the case that he simply wishes to save us from tyranny - or he'd not have proposed tyranny as the solution!
No comments:
Post a Comment