Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich's Response to Nice Terror Attack: Rip Up the Constitution

Former Speaker of the House wants to "test" anyone of "Muslim background" and criminalize the internet.


Your worst nightmare.
Flickr/Mario Piperni

Former Speaker of the House (and likely failed candidate to become Donald Trump's running mate) Newt Gingrich gave a response to the terror attack in Nice, France last night that is breathtaking in its unconstitutionality, impracticality, and inhumanity. 

Speaking to Fox News' Sean Hannity, Gingrich said, "Western civilization is at war," adding, "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."

Pew Research Center (PRC) estimates that there are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the U.S., and as PRC's Besheer Mohamed notes, "About one-in-five American Muslim adults were raised in a different faith or none at all. At the same time, a similar number of people who were raised Muslim no longer identify with the faith. About as many Americans become Muslim as leave Islam." 

How exactly the government would interview each person of a "Muslim background" — much less determine whether or not they believe in sharia — is left unexplained, as is any consideration that having "incorrect" beliefs is a constitutionally protected right of all Americans. Further (and it's incredible this needs to be said) a person living their life in accordance with sharia law does not automatically them a violent threat. A learned person who so desperately wants to ride the "anti-P.C." coattails of Donald Trump should be well aware of this, but no matter, Gingrich isn't done shredding the Constitution. 

After paying cursory respect to "modern Muslims," Gingrich proposed making a felony out of visiting "any website that favors ISIS," as well as "any organization which hosts such a website," which would presumably include Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and innumerably more sites where people freely engage in all sorts of incendiary speech. This would also make criminals out of journalists, academics, activists, and any number of people with an interest in learning about "the enemy," but that's of little concern to the simple-minded tough-guy rhetoric of Gingrich who thinks "this is the fault of Western elites who lack the guts to do what is right, to do what is necessary, and to tell us the truth."

Gingrich is hardly the first to call for limits on free speech because of the supposedly existential threat posed by ISIS, but his "constitutional conservative" bona fides are probably not helped by the fact that he is now parroting the same anti-free speech positions held by people like his own long-time nemesis Hillary Clinton and the leftist law professor Eric Posner.

Watch Gingrich beclown himself below:

NEXT: The ACLU Counts the Ways Trump Would Violate Civil Liberties

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Newt Gingrich’s Response to Nice Terror Attack: Rip Up the Constitution

    How is this terrorism?

    1. Probably workplace violence or he was a repressed homosexual, right?

      Fool me once…

  2. My worst nightmare is to get stuck with the cast of the Ghostbusters remake thirty minutes after taking Viagra.

    1. *Stuck in an elevator.* I was distracted by spelling, and not the sexy version.

      1. could be worse, you could be stuck in a pagoda with Tricia Toyota.

    2. that thought experiment has never occurred to me.

    3. hmm. Depends on which cast members.

  3. What’s going on with Newt’s head these days? I saw the still from the video and i could have sworn he got tiny face’d.

    1. The expansion of vacuum in a low-pressure pumpkin is a well-established phenomenon.

    2. Zika praecox- look what it did to Donald’s fingers and Zippy’s head.

  4. Sorry, but this little gem couldn’t wait for the pm lynx.

    Food Justice is Racial Justice!

    1. we reached out to leaders of color in the food justice community for their thoughts about how they think the “food movement” might come together on the issues of race, equity, and access.


      Thanks, Gojira! I needed that!

    2. I tried but I just cant force myself to read that dreck.

      1. “Food Apartheid”! It’s fucking hilarious.

        1. Damn, you and I hit on the same part.

      2. But you’ll miss wisdom such as this! (emphasis is mine)

        Given the roots of the agriculture in America, it origins in chattel slavery and violent plantation culture, it is no surprise that we see an evolved and sophisticated continuation of that culture in today’s food system. Rampant exploitation of workers, displacement from land and home via gentrification and foreclosures, inadequate access to quality food, all reinforced by racialized policies. Quite frankly, our modern food system is a true regime of food apartheid that undermines democratic and community control of our food systems.

        1. is it racialized policy that pays farmers to NOT grow things? How about diverting a good share of the corn crop to ethanol? My god; these people don’t even try any more.

          1. What do you mean, “these people?” RACIST.

        2. democratic and community control of our food system


          1. Collard greens and grape drank for everyone.

          2. She means starvation.

    3. “Leaders of color”

      1. Who’s leading the fuscia, is what I want to know.

        1. A person who was purple-bodied at birth but shifted.

        2. I don’t know. However, IIRC, Obama said “The fuscia must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    4. Yeah, well. Freedom does include the freedom to be retarded.

    5. The derp, it burns.

    6. Lol, they might be more damaged than this person but I doubt it:

      Q. Gay, straight, or indifferent ?: Nearly a decade ago, I met my best friend, L. He’s male, I’m female, and we have been the closest of friends ever since, speaking daily, and being involved in each other’s families. At first, we both thought something more might come of this friendship, but instead we remained friends and he came out as gay five years ago. Four years ago, I married a wonderful man with an unfortunate jealous streak who has been wary of L from Day 1 because he knows we flirted with a relationship in the past. L and I have both struggled with mental health issues, but we are both doing well now. We speak very openly about these struggles with one another, which is also something that bothers my husband. (He still sees mental illness as something of a stigma.) Recently L moved across the country and has now asked me to join him. He wants to settle down and have a family and long-term relationship while carrying on an open sexual relationship. L is the man of my dreams, and I already struggle in my marriage in a variety of ways, including with infertility, which L has supported me through all along. The problem is?I’m actually considering it. Help?

      1. good god that’s not even the most damaged person in the post:

        Q. Should I call CPS?: My neighbors who live down the lane let their kids run wild. I know it is summer, but I have seen them out playing in the nearby woods at 10 p.m. The road that runs by the woods is twisty and not well lit. We had two hit and runs in the last year. These kids have been caught trespassing in other neighbors’ backyards?letting dogs out, swimming, or using trampolines. Apparently their parents don’t care. The only one I ever see around is their bored teenager who sunbathes all the time. I have never spoken to these neighbors, but I am worried. Should I call CPS, or am I overreacting?

        1. Hey, at least the column writer seems to recognize the hammer of the State for what it is.

          1. Indeed, when asked about calling CPS on parents “unschooling” their children she writes:

            I agree that their approach to education is lousy, but the children can read and write and are generally safe. That’s not the highest of bars to clear, to be sure, but my concern is that contacting any sort of state authority is using a sledgehammer.

            And she writes that calling CPS on parents should be reserved for cases are in actual danger not when you don’t like someone’s parenting.

        2. That legitimately makes me angry.

        3. Perhaps before you escalate to contract kidnapping, you could express your concerns to the parents?

    7. Quite frankly, our modern food system is a true regime of food apartheid that undermines democratic and community control of our food systems. It does so with privatization/corporatization at the expense of people and the planet for profits.

      Words fail.

      1. So…collective farms?

    8. Let me guess, “white people caused me to eat unhealthy food.”

      How about eating more [racial food stereotype deleted] and less fried [racial food stereotype deleted]?

  5. I just got up and am still a little groggy, but from what I’ve deciphered so far this AM is that the driver of the semi-automatic assault truck was a creepy loner, who was not particularly religious, whose wife left him.

    How the fuck does that qualify as terrorism?

    Words have meanings. Terrorists, BY FUCKING DEFINITION, have a political agenda. What political position was this guy trying to change through his actions?

    What am I missing, here?

    1. Omar Mateen was just a frustrated, self hating gay dude.

      1. He certainly wasn’t affiliated with ISIS.

        1. Is there any reason to think he might have been acting on behalf of ISIS, or in solidarity with ISIS and their goals? Just curious.

          1. A person can claim anything they want.

            You can go into a mall and kill a hundred patrons yelling “hail Tom Cruise”, but it doesn’t mean you’re a Scientologist.

            It just makes you a guy with a fucking screw loose.

            1. Because there is alot of mass murder associated with Tom Cruise and Scientology to achieve political goals? Because that would be needed for the analogy to make sense.

            2. I guess it’s just a strange coincidence that all these guys with a screw loose happen to have a certain thing in common. Yup, nothing going on here.

              1. Was there or was there not a previous tie to anyone in ISIS?

                I realize you want there to be, as it would fit your narrative. But, the bottom line is, he was a lone wolf who wanted his 15 minutes and go out in a blaze of glory.

                1. Who gives a shit about ISIS? Radical Islam is cultural influenza. It infects healthy and unhealthy people but the unhealthy tend to succumb to it. Was it organized by ISIS? Probably not. Is it terrorism? Obviously.

                  1. Radical Islam is cultural influenza.

                    So any Muslim who commits a crime is a terrorist?

                    1. …In the name of Islam? Specifically targeting non-Muslim westerners? Fucking duh?

            3. SHHHH!! We’ll have none of that sensible talk here.

              There’s pants to shit into!

            4. All the guys that do this have loose screws. They are all batshit crazy.

              Nice driver had hand grenades and an auto rifle. Where did he get them? Some radical islamic recruiter recognized him as fitting the pattern of the guy who could be convinced to do this and then supplied him.

              Mohammad was the weapon.

              1. Yeah, sure, but if he didn’t have a previous indisputible tie directly to ISIS, it doesn’t count, because reasons and pants shitting.

        2. It is a war Frank. This is what a clash of civilizations looks like. What you are seeing in Europe is the latest of many Muslim invasions. This is what it looks like. It’s what it looked like the last dozen times they tried it. This is not a bunch of poor victims seeking the good life in the west. Sure a few are and we know how to select them but that is not what we are doing.

          It isnt modern armies in formation pouring over the border, or mounted soldiers flying banners. It is individuals from one culture trickling and then pouring in. You look up one day and think ‘wait a minute, where did all these fuckers come from?’. They agitate, they whine, then the violence begins small and escalates. Eventually people get enough and round them up and the slaughter begins. That is where this is headed.

          Reality is an ugly bitch.

          1. As is evident by the 3.3M Muslim Americans NOT committing heinous acts.

            How many Muslims in Europe are peaceful compared to criminal?

            Collectivise much?

            Can I say Christianity is responsible for any crime committed by a Christian?

            1. is there a particular number of Muslims who must actively participate for it to be an issue? Europe is awash in criminal acts from followers of this religion, areas where certain crimes were virtually non-existent now deal with them regularly and the perpetrators all seem to follow a similar belief system. It’s not “collectivizing” to notice that Islam has not meshed very well with Western Europe.

              1. It’s not “collectivizing” to notice that Islam has not meshed very well with Western Europe.

                At best, it’s generalizing. But yeah, it’s collectivizing several million people from a dozen different cultures into one murderous broth.

                1. And yet, the reality of Europe’s crime spike is unmistakable. Every black in the US is not a criminal but it’s hard to ignore that inner-city neighborhoods are not where you want to be stuck at 2 in the morning. In some cities, at 2 in the afternoon. You are welcome to refute the notion of Islam being incompatible with the West. A solid case can be made for Islam being incompatible with itself since most people killed by Muslims are other Muslims who are part of the “wrong” sect.

                2. yeah, it’s collectivizing several million people from a dozen different cultures into one murderous broth

                  Well, thank God that’s not what anyone here is doing. Islam as a religious and political ideology is toxic to Western civilization. Its practitioners generally aren’t, but a few are.

              2. is there a particular number of Muslims who must actively participate for it to be an issue?

                Is there a particular number of Muslims who must actively participate in order to transgress upon the rights of innocent Muslims for the actions of another?

                At what point can you discriminate against an entire group, made up primarily of innocents, for the criminal acts of an individual within that group?

                If the guy who sits in front of you in church decides to blow up a schoolbus full of kids becuz god told him to, is your congregation complicit?

                1. Does the congregation preach the sanctity and encouragement of such acts, and adhere to a text and tradition which advocates violence and murder to advance the faith? That might be important.

                  1. No…it doesn’t. In either case.

                    1. Really, none of that at all in Islam, in the Hadiths, the Quran, the Wahabbism, no examples of Mosques preaching radicalism and violent jihad, some right here in the US? That’s good to know, I guess all of these things are imaginary.

                    2. none of that at all in Islam

                      Didn’t say that. I’m saying it’s not predominate.

                      Any of that in Christianity?

                    3. Any of that in the Bible?

                      Leviticus 20:1-5
                      [1] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
                      [2] Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
                      [3] And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
                      [4] And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
                      [5] Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

                      Romans 1:32
                      Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,
                      not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

                      Jeremiah 48:10
                      Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

                      Psalm 58:10
                      The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance:
                      he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

                    4. According to The Economist, Nice has a problem with Islamic radicals, the “most intractable problems of Islamic radicalization outside the Paris region.” I think the article is behind the magazine’s paywall. This quote catches the gist of it:

                      By the start of this year, at least 55 residents of Nice and other towns in the department of Alpes-Maritimes, which covers the C?te d’Azur, had left to fight in Syria or Iraq. That included 11 members of a single family. The department’s government recently closed down five underground prayer houses suspected of preaching violent Islamism. (In total there are roughly 40 mosques in and around Nice.)

                      Huh, five just in one town in France. They must be imagining it.

          2. Serious question: Who is the enemy? All Muslims?

            Who, other than ISIS and Al Queda, which have no state or nation, are you going to fight?

          3. Those damned commies!

          4. Yes, this is exactly like when Charles Martel had to stop the Arab army at Tours. Exactly the same thing.

      2. Close. He was a frustrated psycho loner.

    2. People were scared. And as if that wasn’t enough, he was from Tunisia. Most people can add 2+2, dude.

      1. ter?ror?ism
        the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

        1. Frankie! And oh yeah thanks for not reluctantly and after careful deliberation droning me today, you’re the best!

        2. I think you’d better get yourself a new dictionary. The one you’re using now appears to be broke.

          You might need to wait a bit for the final edits to be made before you can get your new Woke Dictionary.

    3. Last girl that left me, I only killed a dozen people.

      1. Apparently you didn’t *really* love her.

        1. I thought I did but my rage really tapered off after the first few deaths. Maybe it was all for the best.

    4. What you’re missing is a brain that doesn’t believe all the bullshit spewed out by the JournoList.

      1. Answer the question. What was the political motivation that makes this qualify as terrorism?

        It may turn out to be terrorism, but I’ve yet to see anything that would justify the use of that word.

        Or are all Muslims to commit crimes terrorists? Has the definition changed without me being notified?

        1. I said above and you didn’t want to believe. People were scared, some might even say terrified. That’s all it takes anymore. Come on, man. Words losing their meanings can’t be new to you.

          1. That’s all it takes anymore.

            NO, it isn’t. Words have meanings.

            People, with agendas, use that word because it provokes a visceral response. They are attempting to shape a narrative with it, usually for their own political aggrandizement. And you are letting them, because you happen to believe the same narrative. So…you are guilt of the same misdirection.

            As I said, the facts may in fact point to this being terror. But from what I’ve seen so far, the use of that word, in association with this act, is not justified.

            1. As I said to R C yesterday, wanting to protect the language is a noble goal. Unfortunately, you and I and everyone else here is losing the battle. There’s nothing wrong with continuing to fight, just realize that you’re now the crazy old man yelling at the brick wall. This ain’t an old man’s world anymore and it ain’t an old man’s language.

              You can get fleek* and get woke* or get lost.

              * I’m not sure but I think I used those right.

              1. That probably should be are losing.

              2. wanting to protect the language is a noble goal.

                Has nothing to do with protecting the language.


                In the government’s infinite wisdom, there are different punishments for killing someone if it’s considered a “terrorist act” vs simple murder. Let’s say you decide to kill your wife for cheating on you… Is it okay for me, the DA, to call you a terrorist and charge you as such, just becuz feelz?

                1. Your dispute is over how whatever the French equivalent of an AG charges a dead suspect who was killed while doing terroristy things?

                2. I suspect the DA would charge me differently for killing my wife than for killing my wife plus 83 other people. I suspect the term terrorist would be used, but what difference, at that point, would it make?

                  1. Also I’m guessing, and this is just a wild-ass guess, that if this guy with a truck full of bombs and grenades had done nothing more than kill the woman who dumped him he would have been called a murderer and not a terrorist.

                  2. The Bath bombing was just a disagreement between some guy and his bank.

        2. It’s a valid question, and you’re right to ask it.

          Ignore knee-jerk hostility. Today will bring a pleasant surprise. Your lotto numbers are 85 2 64 23 51

        3. It’s religious motivation. Islam has always been spread through violence and intimidation – starting with the Prophet himself. It’s considered a feature not a bug and is written into the Koran and Hadith. That’s why the “moderate Muslim” backlash never really materializes.

          1. That’s the question he’s asking. Was this guy trying to spread Islam, or was he a nutjob who finally went over the edge when his vagina walked out on him, and he just snapped?

            Any muzzie who kills somebody isn’t automatically a terrorist, or doing it to try and further Islam. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

            I’m not saying this guy isn’t a terrorist, but Frank is (quite correctly) asking if we have some reason to believe there was a religious motivation here, and not a “I want to skin women so I can become one” type motivation.

            1. and not a “I want to skin women so I can become one” type motivation.

              Oh, so that’s not a “real” motivation anymore? The Great Warty One’s curse be upon you!

            2. Yes, he is right to ask. I don’t think we know enough yet to fully answer.

              It has all of the earmarks of a terror attack (Dude named mohammed attacks on bastille day, random killing as many as possible, armed with weaponry that looks like military crap others attackers had, etc.)

              I take the radicals at their word when they say they are invading europe and will take it over. There are enough of them now in france that they are emboldened to up their attacks like Paris and Nice. Having attacks like this over and over until you subdue the population of the nation you are invading seems like enough political motive to me. That is my take on it now with the info we have.

              1. Fair enough. Given the hallmark attributes, I can say that I lean towards it being a terrorist attack.

                But to simply declare it one all over the news, which both our gov’t and the French one have done, is irresponsible at best until more facts are known.

            3. Or a political motivation. I asked in the morning links whether he had some sort of note (manifesto?) explaining his motivation. I suppose causing a crackdown on Muslims by French authorities could be an aim.

              If he was just a nut, say similar to the guy who shot up the church in South Carolina, is it fair to say culture had something to do with it? American wackjobs go on shooting sprees. Muslims also mass killings. I bet you could find a culture, say Koreans, where such behavior is less common, even correcting for the frequency of mental illness.

              1. If he was just a nut, I think that a better comparison would be the Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shooters, not Roof. Roof definitely had an ideological motivation.

            4. Most likely people are assuming the prime suspect (radical islam) is guilty here as it has been so often in the recent past, particularly in France. This wouldn’t even be the first terrorist attack by car there. There have been several, one earlier this year even.

              Though there have also been officials, including in France, who have called it a terrorist attack and claimed it was linked to a terrorist group.

          2. The moderate Muslim backlash never materializes because Muslims as a whole are not responsible for the corn nuts who murder people in the name of their religion, any more than you or I are responsible for the corn nuts who murder Muslims in the name of the United States.

          3. It’s religious motivation.

            Fox said the guy wasn’t particularly religious.

            The monster behind the wheel of a box truck that plowed into Bastille Day revelers in Nice late Thursday – killing at least 84 – was a creepy Tunisian loner sometimes prone to violence, but not seen by police or neighbors as a religious fanatic, according to French reports.

            Which, if true, makes this guy a simple nut-job. Not a terrorist.

            Terrorism, like racism, is a word without a meaning. Just thrown around at will to support a political agenda.

            1. It could be terrorism. Right now, I’m leaning toward random mass killing. New information can and will change my opinion.

              1. DOOMco|7.15.16 @ 11:57AM
                “Right now, I’m leaning toward random mass killing.”
                Derp does not suit you. If you are trying to come off as restrained and reasonable than I must tell you it just seems strained.

              2. Agree. The thing that sticks out for me is the automatic weapon and grenades. We’ll see what turns up in time.

                1. I could very well be wrong. Either way, it’s horrific.

            2. “He (didn’t) pray and liked girls and Salsa,”

              So not likely to be another gay thing, but we can’t rule it out either.

        4. So in your mind, it doesn’t qualify as terrorism unless the guy has an explicit political manifesto written down on paper or on his computer or something. The fact that he commit a mass attack on the French on Bastille Day I guess is just a really unfortunate but amazing coincidence to you too.

          I have no idea how old you are dude, but I figured out that you can’t believe most of the shit you see in the “mainstream media” by the time I was like 14 or 15. When are you going to grow up?

          1. Why is it not terrorism when the US gubmint drops bombs on innocent people, all to get a couple of really bad guys?

            Oh right, we use a proxy, which makes it totes OK. Killing innocent peasants is something we all do together.

            1. When the IRA uses bombs, it’s terrorism. When the unibomber did it? Harder line.
              There is a difference between random mass killing, and a planned attack for a specific social or political goal.

              1. There is a difference between random mass killing, and a planned attack for a specific social or political goal.


            2. So, tie our hands behind our backs and wish upon a star?

          2. Yeah, Frank. It really looks like Islamic terrorism. What the fuck don’t you understand?

            1. Arguing with Cultural Justice Warriors is just like arguing with SJWs. They KNOW everything fits their narrative, they don’t NEED evidence!

          3. So in your mind, it doesn’t qualify as terrorism unless the guy has an explicit political manifesto written down on paper or on his computer or something.

            It doesn’t need to be written down, but, YES, there needs to be a political motivation. Mass murderers are not necessarily terrorists. Muslim criminals are not necessarily terrorists.

            1. …and you believe Islam has no political motivation?

        5. Francisco d’Anconia|7.15.16 @ 11:14AM|#

          Answer the question. What was the political motivation that makes this qualify as terrorism? …but I’ve yet to see anything that would justify the use of that word.”

          Oblunger just called. He said you got the job as his spokesman. Congrats.

        1. That doesn’t rhyme with “Ruth Bader Ginsburg” at all…

    5. Frankie! Yes that is the reluctance to ‘drone first and ask questions later’ that makes you so great! Let’s wait and see if he had any connections to ISIS perhaps through some guy he met while in jail for petty crimes. Then we can bomb them. But not until then. Because that’s ‘industry best practices’, like you always say.

      1. I was wondering when our resident terrorist would show up. How much time did you spend ululating last night?


        2. So, in your angry little brain, shreek and David Weigel are somehow the same person but dajjal and AddictionMyth are not?

        3. Hasn’t cytotoxic been up for a while?

          1. Cytotoxic’s mom won’t let him get on the computer until he does all his chores.

        1. Fuck off yourself you murderous slime.

 US DoD Network Information Center US Department of Defense Network

          1. Didn’t addiction myth post this the other day?

            1. AddictionMyth and dajjal are the same unbalanced individual, it is known.

              1. “He’s a cyber-bully, Newt. He was harassing us online.”

                “It’s true Newt – I seen it too. He was ganging up on us with his sockpuppets!”

              2. And he just admitted on the other thread that he’s shrieking idiot/Palin’s Buttplug posting under a new slew of names. Weigel is off his meds again.

                1. And Tulpa. Don’t forget Tulpa, he was one of the best. RIP, Tulpa.

                  1. Here a Tulpa
                    There a Tulpa
                    Everywhere a Tulpa, Tulpa

                2. As with a few other commentators who post on occasion on H&R, I do not care who he or she is, and after starting to read the first few comments he or she left, I do not read or even scan his or her comments.

    6. Bro:

      I believe there is No God but God and that Muhammad is the Apostle of God.

      And I STILL believe this was an act of terrorism.

      Ya aren’t helping people like me, Francisco, by denying an obvious thing. If anything you’re just making things worse.

      You damn “apologists” are NOT HELPING. From what I’ve seen you’re actually INFLAMING people’s passion against Muslims.

      The way to address this situation is to examine the root cause, the Wahhabi movement and their intolerant ideology and intolerant interpretation of Sharia. The political elites will never mention the Wahhabis by name, to terrified of offending the Saudis. When someone blames “Muslims” or “Sharia” the CORRECT way to counteract that generalization would be to narrow down the focus to the Wahhabis, their history, current actions, and the network of support from Wahhabi states to terrorists.

      DENYING any amount of Islam in a terrorist act ONLY PISSES OFF the people who you think you are defending me from.


      1. EBS, let’s get one thing straight. I’m not defending you. I’m not defending Muslims. I’m not defending terrorists. I’m not defending criminals.

        I am defending the basic human right of innocent people to not be lumped together with murderous shitbags because they share common beliefs.

        I am criticizing anyone who jumps to the conclusion that an act is “terrorism” without the basic criteria being met.

        I’m criticizing people who CLAIM to care about liberty for collectivising.

        That’s it. I truly don’t give a shit about you or your hokey religion.

        1. “I am criticizing anyone who jumps to the conclusion that an act is “terrorism” without the basic criteria being met.”

          No, you’re insisting that the sky isn’t blue unless someone can properly analyze the hexadecimal value of the light and show you that it mathematically falls within a range that society accepts as being “blue”.

          By refusing to even ACKNOWLEDGE that evidence points towards something, you are blatantly HELPING those who advocate collectivism. You are NOT espousing individuality!! What it LOOKS like to people, regardless of your motives, is that you SUPPORT collectivism, and view people in terms of groups, you merely deny that this one individual fits in a group.

          To defeat COLLECTIVISM you have to attack the concept of group-identity ITSELF, you can’t just deny that bad people fit into groups!! By YOUR approach, you’re only giving more ammunition and inspiration to the collectivists, because you LOOK like you’re denying the likely motives of the individual involved, and thus denying he is part of a group, rather than denying group-identity politics in the first place.

          You aren’t helping anyone avoid collectivism. From what I can see above, you’re only inciting people to be more collectivist. Your RESULTS are contrary to your goals, so you should really just be quiet until you learn how to effectively argue against collectivism.

          1. By refusing to even ACKNOWLEDGE that evidence points towards something

            Frank has been asking for evidence all morning though and no one is providing it. The guy has an Islamic name and that’s it. He also was heavily armed which indicates a bit of organized support, but he could also have saved up and bought it from a local criminal who he knows is selling. His FB message before the attack said KILL! KILL! KILL!, not some prayer or praising of his God. It’s YOUR evidence that is weak.

            There are dozens of these attacks every month where it’s easy to say “Probably terrorism,” but the one time we have an attack that is still very grey, everyone goes nuts on Frank for not jumping to the same conclusion everyone else is.

          2. Word salad bullshit.

            By asking for some modicum of proof before jumping to conclusions I’m aiding collectivism?

            It can look like a pink elephant. Just because it looks like a pink elephant and everyone wants to believe it’s a pink elephant, doesn’t make it a pink elephant. Objective reality, how does it work?

            And I’ve acknowledged MULTIPLE TIMES that this may be terror related.

    7. How the fuck does that qualify as terrorism?

      “Obtuse” is the word of the day for you. Better IV drip that coffee. Scratch that. Pull out your rig and heat up the spoon. Desperate times.

    8. Lost his job in the grenade shop too?

  6. but that’s of little concern to the simple-minded tough-guy rhetoric of Gingrich who thinks “this is the fault of Western elites who lack the guts to do what is right, to do what is necessary, and to tell us the truth.”

    That’s also Trump’s appeal in a nutshell:


    It’s completely vapid nonsense but it’s enough to make Hannity cream his pants.

    1. Russia’s leader who does the same schtick is in better shape and appears to be more badass. I don’t think this is a contest we want to enter.

  7. Yeah, I was pretty aggravated by seeing the headline on his proposal.

    I assume his next move will be rounding up black people to ask them whether shooting a cop is wrong. Life in prison for those with wrongthink.

    Judging by the amount of Republicans who happily agree with a complete (unqualified) ban on Muslim immigration, I expect this proposal will have at least 30% of America in total agreement too, unfortunately.

  8. I am willing to entertain alternative ideas on how to prevent guys named Mohammed from exploding / running over / shooting up crowds since you seemed determined to let them in.

    1. Some member of the commentariat has suggested making the name “Mohammed” illegal.

    2. Because shredding the First Amendment in a move that would never, ever capture an actual terrorist (who the fuck is going to admit to something that will get them deported when they are planning a terrorist attack?) is a reasonable solution. Also, he used the words “every person here … of a Muslim background” which, if taken literally, doesn’t even limit it to immigrants. Where are you going to deport US citizens to?


    1. Hey Weigel. Freaking out because you know Trump is going to win? Better stay on your meds buddy.

  10. “We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background”

    “And by ‘frankly’, I mean requiring them to eat an all-pork hotdog.”

  11. These assholes are really trying their hardest to make this presidential election a choice between Evil and Evil. I’m just not going to feel bad about opting out entirely.

    1. Don’t opt out.

      “We’re polling incredibly well across the nation with two despised major party candidates,” said Cthulhu press secretary Samir al-Azrad.

    2. “trying their hardest”?? Dude, that bridge was crossed long ago.

  12. Finally! Colleges can return “The Crucible” to the Theater Department’s rotation.

    1. + more weight

  13. Anyone advocates and conspires to make sharia law the law of the USA by necessity advocates and conspires for the violent overthrow of the government of the USA and the constitution as well calling for murder, slavery, cruel and unusual punishment, the amalgamation of church and state as well as other crimes . It is fundamentalist islam and the muslim brotherhood who seek to destroy the constitution, not those who seek to eradicate the muslim brotherhood and fundamentalist islam .

    1. Sush, stop bringing up facts.

      1. He didn’t actually cite any facts.

        1. It’s amazing how many supposed libertarians and Constitutionalists are willing to shred the First Amendment as long as Muslims are the target.

    2. “Sharia” means different things to different Muslims, being that different Muslims consider different Hadiths either valid or invalid. It’s not a good litmus test for being “anti-American”. It’d be like banning anyone who believes in “Laws” from the country. It begs the question “Which laws??”

      As I’ve said before, I’d rather the US used the Sharia of the Quranists or the Ahmadiyya in terms of the rules for warfare and engagement than I would like continuing to use the US’s CURRENT rules for war. Those versions of Sharia say war is only valid in defense or in response to a broken treaty, and those standards seem pretty good to me, especially in comparison to the current adventurism and nation building casus bellis.

  14. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.

    Unlike collective guilt, collective punishment, mass surveillance and loyalty oaths (to name a few).

  15. How exactly the government would interview each person of a “Muslim background” ? much less determine whether or not they believe in sharia ? is left unexplained


    We’re all Stasi, now.

    1. You VILL tell us who told you zat!

      1. Vat you really really vant?

    2. So then, it’s impossible to vet them. Solution: Severely limit (by volume, age, sex, job skills, education and/or citizen sponsorship)) immigration from such countries known to harbor and/or produce such individuals prone to exhibit such behavior. Maybe 100/year, tops. Sponsors are required to house, feed and employ such individuals for first 5 years.

  16. OT: Trump’s VP pick is Mike Pence. Now he has my vote for sure!

    1. Said Mike Pence’s mom, and no one else.

  17. I do rather get a chuckle out of the idea of “testing” – what’s the test? Stomping on a Koran? Wiping your ass with a prayer rug? Making them watch Curb Your Enthusiasm and watch them to see if they’re laughing?

    1. Making them watch Curb Your Enthusiasm and watch them to see if they’re laughing?

      That’s an admission test everyone can get behind. If Curb your Enthusiasm doesn’t make you laugh you should be deported.

    2. I hear all you need is a Petri dish, a copper wire, and a flamethrower.

      1. That only works for lice.

    3. Do you believe in Sharia law? (Pick one answer)

      A. Yes
      B. No

  18. Here’s my question for the Presidential debate:

    “Most Americans couldn’t care less about due process or other Constitutional protections, so long as they, personally, are not inconvenienced. How will you placate this underserved segment of the populace?”

    1. “Force Muslims to wear a crescent moon patch on their sleeves.”

  19. Sharia means different things to different people. To many Muslims, it simply means that the laws aren’t given and implemented by corrupt politicians or authoritarian dictators–sharia to them means that we’re endowed by our creator with certain rights.

    Certainly, just because the Saudis and ISIS cite sharia when they use it to chop the heads off of dissenters or burn uncooperative sex slaves to death doesn’t mean Muslims everywhere support that because they like “sharia”.

    Imagine people elsewhere in the world equating belief in the Constitution with support for the My Lai Masscre or if they equated the Bill of Rights with support for the torture photos at Abu Ghraib. American legal scholars said waterboarding wasn’t cruel and unusual punishment! And did you know the Constitution specifically countenances slavery and even specifies how slaves should be counted? I don’t understand why we should tolerate these damn Americans among us–why some of them openly say they believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, too. They’ll say it right to your face!

    1. “Sharia means different things to different people.”

      It pretty much means religious laws. And, perhaps unlike Christians, who generally believe their laws are all found in one book, the concept of Hadith means that Muslims can have radically different laws based on which Hadiths they accept or reject.

      The entire concept of Hadith is really stupid, that a God would give you a supposedly perfect book of scripture (Quran) but still expect you to follow contradictory, hard-to-verify scripture outside of the “perfect” book, but that’s a theological discussion better suited for other forums.

      Basically it means that each Muslim has a different idea on what their religion’s laws actually are. To the Quranist, apostasy is against Sharia, but it is a crime that has no punishment whatsoever in this life as Sharia specifies no punishment outside of “hell”. To the Wahhabi, apostasy is against Sharia, and Sharia calls for the death of the apostate.

      Overall Hadith causes Sharia to be such a nebulous, almost meaningless concept, one that varies by person, that it would be hard to use that as a standard to judge anything. I’d expect people who call for bans to, if they are intellectually HONEST, call for banning people who believe in Jewish Law or other religious laws first, which are more standardized in their scriptures and have some of the facets that people say are incompatible with the Constitution.

      1. Then perhaps Westerners should not dabble in the philosophy of alien faiths and should more straightforward terms like “Islamic theocracy”.

      2. “It pretty much means religious laws.”

        Whatever else it means, it also means “god given rights”–as opposed to the whims of politicians or the interests of dictators.

        “And, perhaps unlike Christians, who generally believe their laws are all found in one book, the concept of Hadith means that Muslims can have radically different laws based on which Hadiths they accept or reject.”

        It’s almost like Protestants, isn’t it?

        They just read it for themselves, interpret it in all sorts of ways–disagree a lot.

        The five schools of Sunni jurisprudence disagree about all sorts of issues.

        But it’s my understanding that all five have condemned ISIS and their interpretation of Sharia as heresy.

        I just don’t see disagreements about what the Quran, the hadith, and tradition really says and what it means as a bad thing.

        1. “Whatever else it means, it also means ‘god given rights’–as opposed to the whims of politicians or the interests of dictators.”

          I’d think most people would be hard-pressed to find a religious adherent who would think that their religious laws are lesser than their political laws. (If that’s the case, why even be religious?) Maybe the Confucians, since they believe tradition leads to virtue, but I can’t think of anyone else to whom that would apply.

          “It’s almost like Protestants, isn’t it?”

          Yeah, pretty much. It is quite funny to watch people who assume that the Muslims don’t do exactly what they do when it comes to religion.

          “But it’s my understanding that all five have condemned ISIS and their interpretation of Sharia as heresy.”

          More or less. They’ve even broken Hadiths that almost every sect agrees are true Hadiths.

          “I just don’t see disagreements about what the Quran, the hadith, and tradition really says and what it means as a bad thing.”

          It’s not. It just makes “sharia” a very individually-understood thing. Quite impossible to actually try to use as a standard for anything.

  20. I believe there are/were genuinely naive communists, too, who, as gullible as they were, genuinely think/thought that communism doesn’t necessitate starvation and death camps.

    Regardless, since when do we countenance using the government to do something about what people say and believe? Satanic misanthropes suck, but as long as they don’t actually violate anybody’s rights, we’re in greater danger from those who would use the government to punish people for what they say and believe than we are from what people say and believe.

  21. I caught a bit of Geraldo frothing at the mouth on O’Reilly last night. It was something else.

    1. What was his position?

      1. Like newcular titties on steroids.

    2. He was at it again this morning.

      Wasn’t he an Obumbles supporter back in the day?

  22. We must do something, Anthony. And this is something.

    What do you got?

  23. What was the political motivation that makes this qualify as terrorism?

    Didn’t it take place during a fireworks display? Maybe he hates Chinamen.

    Maybe he’s an anti-gun activist who wanted to show the world you don’t even need a gun to wreak some serious havoc.

  24. What was the political motivation that makes this qualify as terrorism?

    Didn’t it take place during a fireworks display? Maybe he hates Chinamen.

    Maybe he’s an anti-gun activist who wanted to show the world you don’t even need a gun to wreak some serious havoc.

  25. Here’s my doom and gloom predictions of what will happen (regardless of what I believe should happen).

    There will be a ban on Muslim immigration to many Western countries in the near future. Some, like France and Belgium, may have a nasty civil war or simply give up and become Islamic Republics. Once the shooting really gets going and we have a nuclear terrorist event, there will be concentration camps, mass deportations, and maybe worse.

    Not a bright future but I see no way we are going to avoid it. Importing tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” just accelerates and acerbates the crisis.

    For 1100 years Europeans fought to remain independent from Muslim conquerors. The Greeks finally won their independence in 1829 and the conflict took a century and a half hiatus. Now it’s back on and for some reason (bad education systems) people are surprised.

    1. France is not going to become an Islamic Republic. There may be a Sixth Republic, but it will either be a European Top Men fetish state or else a nationalistic French state. They’re more likely to emulate Switzerland than Iran.

      1. They going for more of a Lebanon vibe?

    2. Sadly, it’s looking more and more likely that the Muslims and the non-Muslims will be at war for the rest of humanity’s existence.

      I fear the only solutions are for one side or the other to be wiped out, which is impossible because of the numbers involved, or for an Islamic Reformation, which MIGHT be possible, but I don’t think that will ever happen either.

      1. That century + pause we had was real nice. They stayed in the countries, we stayed in ours. There was some friction at times – piracy, small region wars, etc… – but it seemed to work well for a long time. Then the Left’s insane idea that we owe every brown person something got accepted.

        I don’t see why we can’t go back to that model.

        1. The problem is that there’s so damn many of them in the west now that even a ban going forward wouldn’t completely solve the problem, as more western native future jihadis are now being born in our countries.

          So we’re going to continue to see these kind of atrocities. The next level of ugliness is when the non-Muslim westerners get so fed up they decide to really start retaliating without government permission.

          1. Hence my gloomy predictions.

        2. “That century + pause we had was real nice. They stayed in the countries, we stayed in ours.”

          What time period is this, exactly? Going off your first post, I’m taking 1829 as the starting date. The very next year, the French invaded Algeria. And over the course of the following century, many other Muslim countries were colonized by European nations (and some before as well). I’m not saying this justified terrorism today, I’m just saying that your assertion that “They stayed in their countries, we stayed in ours” is just patently false.

          1. Yeah – I thought somebody would bring it up. The Brits also forced the Arabs to give up their African slave trade, etc… But I don’t really think of those as religious conflicts, just dumb imperialism. The French did give it another go after WWII which is part of why they find themselves in such a pickle.

            1. “The Brits also forced the Arabs to give up their African slave trade, etc… But I don’t really think of those as religious conflicts, just dumb imperialism.”

              Regardless, your statement isn’t true. Also, assuming that every instance of Muslim aggression against Christians was solely a holy religious jihad while acknowledging nuanced reasons behind Christian aggression is a double standard.

    3. “For 1100 years Europeans fought to remain independent from Muslim conquerors. ”

      True, but you misunderstand how Europeans are goofy for monotheism from western Asian deserts. During these 1100 years of fighting off Muslims, Europeans were embracing Christianity, Islam’s older cousin. Europe didn’t need to import her Christians, they converted voluntarily. Banning Muslim immigration won’t stop Europeans from converting to Islam, and state repression will only strengthen their resolve.

      1. “Europe didn’t need to import her Christians, they converted voluntarily.”

        … Verden?? Yeah, I suppose, “I converted because I didn’t want Charlemagne to behead me for Heathenry” is TECHNICALLY a voluntary conversion.

        1. Nobody is being forced to convert to Islam in Europe, yet convert they do. They’re Europeans, after all, and can’t resist the call of these prophets from the desert.

          1. Oh yeah, I agree with that point. Just the way you worded it seemed to imply that all European Christian conversion was voluntary. Which… at times was true, but at times was not.

  26. Has Gingrich made any free speech criticisms about how the progressives are going after climate change deniers?

    Because that would make an interesting contrast to his statements about how people who believe in sharia should be kicked out of the country.

  27. I guess that Newt’s idea of “Western Civilization” includes the famous statement “Kill them all, God will know his own” that was made by Pope Innocent III’s representative, Amalric, telling invading Crusaders how to deal with the Cathars, a heretical Christian sect. The town of Beziers was populated by both devout Catholics and “renegade” Cathars. Killing everyone was simpler than sorting out heretics.

    Myth has it that the Crusades were in response to Muslim aggression but the Albigensian Crusade was launched against Christians who denied the Pope’s authority. Looks like Gingrich would have made a great Crusader back in the 13th century.

    1. The Crusades in the Iberian Peninsula, Palestine, and the Mediterranean were in response to Muslim aggression. Crusades elsewhere were for other reasons – the Northern Crusades by the Teutonic Knights were an effort to clear the remaining pagans out of Europe.

      1. The Palestine part is only partly true. The Turks were invading the Byzantine Empire, but they were not the only state invaded by the Crusaders (of course the region itself was previously under their control and conquered by Muslims, but that was 400+ years earlier). When Jerusalem was sieged, the Jewish population joined the Muslims in resisting the invasion, and both groups were massacred after the city fell. The Crusades are a complex subject, and it’s not completely accurate either way to say that it was just Evil Christian Aggression or Righteous Resistance to Muslim Aggression.

        1. The “Resistance to Muslim Aggression” narrative is pretty funny to consider.

          “The Turks are attacking us!! We have no choice but to go out and conquer the Levant!! Somehow it was self-defense!!”

          1. In fairness, the original idea was to help the Byzantines reacquire territory that was legitimately invaded and conquered by Turks and others and legitimately still Christian (hell, Palestine was likely plurality Christian until the 11th century), get some really warlike dudes the hell out of Europe and bothering someone else, and hopefully get the Byzantines to acknowledge the Pope’s authority in the process.

            The damn thing changed en route and then again once they got to Constantinople, and yet again during the siege of Antioch when they got no help from the Byzantines.

            The First Crusade reads like a bad road trip more than anything cohesive and unitary.

            1. It had been 400+ years since the Byzantines had ruled Palestine, though you are correct in that there was still a large Christian population at the time, possibly a plurality.

              1. Conquest of Palestine was more of a popular goal and side effect of the Crusades, with the original wargoals being something along the lines of helping the Byzantines regain recently lost territory (such as Antioch and Nicaea) and securing the rights of the Christians who lived in and pilgrimaged to Palestine.

                Obviously we all know how well that worked out, but I’d say that the Christian response to Islamic raids and conquests is certainly more ambiguous than the actual Islamic raids and conquests themselves, in terms of who had the right of it from a libertarian standpoint.

                1. “in terms of who had the right of it from a libertarian standpoint.”


                  Sorry, just… pretty much nothing back then passes a libertarian valid casus belli for war.

                  Like, Germany attacking the United States wouldn’t justify the US conquering France. At SOME point in time the Crusaders decided “fuck it, let’s conquer ALL the Turkish states!!”

      2. “Iberian Peninsula, Palestine”

        Look, at some point in time you just have to acknowledge a state as being valid. The point is the Muslims ruled Iberia for seven hundred years, a longer period than the Christians post-Reconquista have ruled Spain. Palestine had been ruled by Muslims for four hundred years at the time of the Crusade against Palestine.

        IF you think that those were completely valid, I PRESUME for the sake of moral consistency, that if the Native Americans in the US all banded together, right now in 2016, and somehow got a hold of enough weaponry to start conquering and taking control of VAST amounts of American land, you would support this act and call it a simple act “in response to American aggression”.

        Because if you’ve been ruling a place for 700 years, or even 400 years, and someone can still validly conquer your lands in a “response” to “your” aggression four hundred fucking years ago, then ANY attempt by Mexico to take back the land it lost in the Mexican-American war, which America has ONLY controlled for 200 years must be a totally valid response to “our” aggression towards Mexico as Americans.

        1. And if you are morally consistent and DO believe Mexico has a valid casus belli for declaring war against America on the grounds of our hundreds-of-years-old conquest of their land, then I think you sound like an SJW.

          If you think Mexico would have no justification for invading the US, TODAY, then you have NO justification for the Crusades in Iberia and Palestine. It was GENERATIONS since the Muslims took those places from the Christians. Get the fuck over it, or give back your land to the Native Americans immediately.

          1. Well at least in the case of Iberia, there was a pretty consistent off-and-on warfare over the course of centuries that the Muslims initially won but ultimately lost. I don’t think it was as clear cut an example of aggression as invading Palestine was.

    2. The good news is that at least the Christian west eventually had a Reformation and an Enlightenment. When are your barbaric Muslim buddies going to follow suit? We’re waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

      1. The Wahhabis ARE the reformation.

        Reformations aren’t always good.

        1. This.

        2. Yep – Just like Martin Luther, the Wahhabis and their ilk started taking their scriptures at face value.

          1. Their Hadiths at least…

      2. “The good news is that at least the Christian west eventually had a Reformation and an Enlightenment.”

        The Christians needed enlightenment. The Pope had opinions on the question of gravity or the existence of vacuums etc, and enforced them by burning scientists at the stake. Islam doesn’t have this history. There is not a history of antagonism between Islam and science, as there was in Europe. You don’t appear to understand the import of the enlightenment in Europe.

        1. There is not a history of antagonism between Islam and science

          Good one.

          1. You don’t appear to understand the import of the enlightenment in Europe. Or the reformation for that matter. Be careful what you wish for.

        2. There is not a history of antagonism between Islam and science

          Because as best as I can tell, there is pretty much no science to speak of in the Islam-dominated world! There was at one time, but certainly not in the last six centuries or so.

          1. If there is no antagonism between science and Islam, there is no need for an enlightenment.

          2. That’s because of the fucking Buddhists.

            No, seriously, the Middle Easterners had a WEALTH of scientific knowledge, and it was a Buddhist Khan and his horde that killed all the scientists and burned their works to the ground at Baghdad.

            If you want some irony, the fact is that an adherent to what is seen as one of the most peaceful religions out there is responsible for setting the Middle East hundreds of years backward scientifically.

            1. Actually if you want true irony, just take my own post, a guy with the handle “Eternal Blue Sky” bitching about Mongol conquests!! Haha!!

        3. “The Christians needed enlightenment.”

          The Christians in the 1500’s were fucking weird. At some point in time they just flat-out decided that everything Aristotle said (that didn’t contradict the Bible) was completely, 100% true. If not for that bizarre decision, they wouldn’t have even cared about Copernicus and Galileo.

  28. I’m viscerally disgusted by the idea of treating American Muslims as second-class citizens. It is wrong, immoral, expands government and destroys the general liberties of all.

    …which is why I don’t understand the open border impulse as it relates to Islamic immigration. The primary advantages of this migration are (ostensibly) economic but we already have plenty of sources for cheap labor or educated immigrants throughout the rest of the world (particularly Mexico and Latin America). Why is it so important that our cities look like Malmo in Sweden or Rotterdam in England, and that we sacrifice our citizens on the altar of immigration and multiculturalism? It makes little sense compared to the frankly pitiful marginal economic benefits compared to immigrants from virtually any other part of the world.

    1. “Why is it so important that our cities look like Malmo in Sweden or Rotterdam in England,”

      Rotterdam. England?

      How is barring immigrants on the basis of their religion in accord with Libertarian principles of treating individuals as individuals? How does it not expand government power?

      1. How is it not? The right of exit does not imply the right of entry.

        1. “How is it not?”

          Libertarians look to the market to solve society’s troubles. They don’t put stock in expanding government power, such as tasking bureaucrats with weeding out Muslims from potential immigrants.

          1. Huzzah to that.

        2. “The right of exit does not imply the right of entry.”

          If you’re a private organization. Maybe I, personally, WANT more Muslims on my land!! The market needs to decide, not bureaucrats.

  29. My buddy’s step-mother makes $96 an hour on this PC. She has been fired for 9 months but last month her payment was $9600 just working on the PC for a few hours. Check It out what she do..


  30. “Newt Gingrich’s Response to Nice Terror Attack: Rip Up the Constitution”

    I hate to think what he’d do if the attack *wasn’t* nice.

    Too soon?

  31. This article is purely ideological and its author is piously mistaken. The “Islamists” have openly said they want Sharia law. Documentation obtained through infiltration of CAIR by federal investigators contain thousands of pages (and alleged videos as well) of conspiratorial evidence against both Muslims and Muslim apologist organizations inside the U.S. who have conspired to overthrow the U.S. and its Constitutional form of government slowly and deliberately from within and ultimately establish Sharia law. Such activity falls under the jurisdiction of 18 U.S. Code, Chapter 115 defining seditious conspiracy and possibly treason. A Pew Poll finds 51% of American Muslims favor Sharia over the U.S. Constitution. For all these reasons Newt is spot-on legally, just perhaps not politically correct.

    1. I don’t see where such an exception is listed in the first amendment. How odd.

  32. Gingrich is an idiot. Muslims ought be deported _because_ they are Muslims. Jihadism/Wahhabism is not “extremism,” is Islam as it has been since its beginning.

  33. Could Newt Gingrich be meaning that Muslims who believe other people (non-believers, apostates) should obey their sharia laws are not welcome in America?

    eg: this Muslim man who stabbed three children aged 8,12, 14 and their mother because they were wearing shorts and t-shirts. see:…..essed.html

    Aren’t people who not only have peculiar views but who also insist others else MUST follow their interpretation or suffer injury or death unwelcome in a society celebrating its diversity?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.