Newt Gingrich has once again felt the pulse of America and has not been shy in expressing what many are feeling. He said on Fox News that:”Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western Civilization is in a war,” and that “Sharia is incompatible with Western Civilization. We need to be fairly relentless about defining who our enemies are.”
But this is not just a problem in America. In almost every Western nation where there is mass-migration of people from majority Muslim nations, there is tension, and violence, and all too often terror attacks. The biggest problem these nations face, is how to remain a free and tolerant society that accepts people of all faiths whilst still safeguarding the population from violent extremists.
In the UK, there are 23,000 people on the Security Service’s Terrorist watch list. The sheer number means that it is impossible to launch investigations into whether or not they are actual threats. So the answer can’t be to try and weed out the wrong doers. Equally, many on the watch list will be so because of someone they may have met…In a free country we don’t punish people for their associates or acquaintances.
The one positive action that can be taken to ensure the threat does not actually get any worse, is to introduce extreme vetting of people who may have links to terrorism. If proper vetting (such as five years worth of social media accounts, correct paper work etc…) is put in place, we can at least be sure that we are not letting in even more people who wish us harm. But will the 9th circuit agree?
The psychological links between Islamic terror and Sharia law are such that any Muslim who adheres to the 7th century code should be deported, says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
“Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western Civilization is in a war,” Gingrich said on Fox News following a recent Islamic terror attack that killed 84 people in Nice, France. “Sharia is incompatible with Western Civilization. We need to be fairly relentless about defining who our enemies are.”
While Gingrich makes the forceful argument that U.S. immigration policy should be vehemently against Sharia for the sake of protecting society, he seems to have no problem with “moderate” Muslims who are entering the country and settling.
So how do we test “moderate” Muslims with any degree of truth or reliability? Would an oath of allegiance or a religious litmus test resolve the dilemma?
Our military exploits across the Middle East have taught how easy it is for jihadists to hide away in so-called moderate communities that offer them protection.
It’s the so-called moderate Muslims that are calling for their own “safe zones” in Australia and the U.S., and it’s the so-called moderate Muslims that rise up with threats of violence over a billboard in Indianapolis that criticizes the prophet Mohammed.
It basically comes down to numbers and demographics. As long as Muslim communities remain small they will remain peaceful for the most part and adhere to the rules of the larger society. As their numbers grow, however, they begin to organize politically, voting in blocs while demanding that society bend to their rules and demands.
We only have to look at the city of London, England, with its non-white majority and its Muslim mayor, and its generally hostile attitude toward native Britons in order to begin to understand the dangers posed by multiculturalism.
The only people that seem to demand that Western countries be continually flooded with Third World migrants are the same people who seek to overturn and replace Western civilization entirely.