Love this Quote

“Any Muslim supporting Sharia should be deported. Any Muslim who does not follow Sharia, and who will embrace American values is welcome to stay…. Western Civilization is at stake…. I am sick of hearing that the greatest power in the world cannot take on a group of 8th century barbarians…. We need to monitor the mosques & madras…. Any persons plotting terrorism, kill them…. Obama is unwilling to lead.” (As best I could recall)
– Newt Gringrich
A man with the best political brain in America & a Winston Churchillian backbone. One of the few who “gets it” – and could save the lives of many reading this. THE BIBLICAL PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO RESTRAIN EVIL & PROTECT THE CITIZENRY. – Pastor Jim Garlow

 

It is time to go Israeli on these “radical” Muslims, they are the cockroaches and we are the Raid to exterminate them once and for all!

 (name withheld)


Response from Mike Challman, MRFF Supporter,

MC QUESTION 1  —  Are you suggesting that we should have some sort of religious test to determine eligibility to remain in the US, and deport anyone who is deemed not to have passed it, potentially including American citizens?

 

YOUR ANSWER  —  If it became known that an American Muslim was for Sharia law then they should be watched, but personally, I would not allow any more Muslim migrates into the country until properly vetted for their religious convictions.

 

MC RESPONSE —  So you are calling for surveillance of some Americans, solely based on someone else’s interpretation of the individual’s personal belief (specifically, being “for Sharia law” whatever that is supposed to mean). And you are also calling for a religious test for immigration. Not exactly in line with the vision of our founding generation. 

 

 

 

MC QUESTION 2  —  How do you propose that the standard of “supporting Sharia” should be established and applied? What constitutes “support” in your mind?  How would such a test be administered and to whom?

 

YOUR ANSWER  —  This I would have to think about more.

 

MC RESPONSE  —  That is probably a very good idea. The more critical thought, the better.

 

 

 

MC QUESTION 3  —  Similarly, with respect to “embracing American values”, what do you propose as the standard for those values?  What constitutes “embracing” in your mind” How would such an “embrace” be demonstrated or proven?

 

YOUR ANSWER  —  American values like the Constitution before Sharia law. Standing for the national anthem if you are going to live in this country, or if not leave. Not trying to force your Muslim dietary laws on those who are not Muslim.

 

MC RESPONSE  —  Doesn’t completely answer the question. How would you apply this standard, in terms of enforcing it?  As to standing for the Anthem – my mom doesn’t stand because she has achy knees. She CAN stand, she just chooses to sit. You would evict her from the country?  And how exactly does anyone “force” their dietary standards on someone else?  That is a bizarre comment.

 

 

 

MC QUESTION 4  —  What do you think should be involved in an effort to “monitor the mosques & madras”… are you suggesting something that is not already found in existing laws?  Are you comfortable with the same tactics being used to monitor Christian churches if/when the government deems it to be appropriate?

 

YOUR ANSWER  —  However they are monitoring mosques now, continue, but churches would not need to be monitored because terrorists do not come from Christian churches, however, I would monitor the Westboro Baptist Church and possibly a church near where I live. If you are thinking of like monitoring like John Hagee’s church or Robert Jeffress, of course not.

 

MC RESPONSE  —  “Terrorists do not come from Christian churches”??? That is incredibly disingenuous of you — many of the worst acts of domestic terror over the 240 years of Amercia’s existence have been done by Christian Americans… oh, but then you do go on to say that you would monitor SOME churches, apparently ones that you have personally identifed as worthy of monitoring.  As far as who is eligible (or better said, at risk) for monitoring, you should keep in mind that if such monitoring does expand, it won’t be up to you to determine which groups are monitored… so it could be you, Hagee, and Jeffress. Still okay with it?

 

 

 

MC QUESTION 5  —  Regarding the notion, “Any persons plotting terrorism, kill them”… are you suggesting that the principles of American jurisprudence would not apply to such a person — no right to face accusers, or to have a speedy trial (or even a trial at all), no presumption of innocence until proven guilty — just “kill them”?

 

YOUR ANSWER  —  Not if plotting, but if they are caught in the act of about to do a terrorist act or just afterward like stabbing or shooting someone, then I would do what the Israeli’s do and just shoot to kill and neutralize them on the spot. Israel has a justice system and a supreme court but you don’t hear them complaining of the actions either the military or police take in neutralizing a suspect no matter what sex or age or the attacker.

 

MC RESPONSE  —  So when a police officer comes upon a chaotic scene where something bad just happened, he should immediately assess (a.) whether or not it was terrorism; (b.) who he perceives as the “bad guy”; and (c.) “kill them on the spot”, regardless of whether or not there is a continuing threat to anyone at that point.  Do I have that right?  Let’s hope he gets it all exactly right, in the midst of all of that confusion.  As for whether or not the Israeli justice system and supreme court are “complaining”, the last time I checked we live in America, not Israel… so their opinion on anything is of no consequence when discussing the rights of American citizens in America.   

 

 

MC QUESTION 6  —  As to the prior point about terrorist plots, what do you propose as the standards for determining what constitutes “plotting”?

 

YOUR ANSWER  —  There is documentation that they are plotting or heard of plotting by way of bugs that have been planted or wiretapping.

 

MC RESPONSE  —   Your answer has two critical flaws.  First, you beg the question.  You contend that plotting means ‘documentation that they are plotting’, and can also mean ‘heard of plotting’. The question remains open — what constitutes “plotting”, specifically?  Your second flaw is much worse — you seem content to let stand the assertion that whomever is “plotting”, according to your still-unclear definition of the term, is to be killed.  No access to the American judicial system.  Just kill them.  

 

 

 

MC QUESTION 7 – Regarding the comment about the “biblical purpose of government”, can you help me to see where this principle is inscribed in the US Constitution?  Further, can you explain whose particular interpretation of Scripture you would propose to be used as the standard for describing this “purpose”?

 

YOUR ANSWER  —  I would say that you may not find that in the Constitution. I would lean toward the more conservative evangelical interpretation of scriptures because we use sound hermeneutical techniques of interpreting scripture.

 

MC RESPONSE  —  You are correct, it’s not in the Consitution.. which should end any discussion about what it means, how it is applied, or how it might impact the rights and privileges of American citizens. But as to your second point, I’m unsurprised that your answer to “whose particular interpretation of Scripture” is to use your intepretation. The problem with that, of course, is that you don’t speak for all Christians, and you certainly don’t speak for all American citizens. Still, it’s a moot point – we’ve already agreed that the notion is un-Constitutional. 

 

 

 

MC QUESTION 8 –  Finally, are you comfortable with the broad characterization of a group that includes law-abiding American citizens living and working in the 21st century as “8th century barbarians”? If so, why do you think that label can be appropriately applied to these citizens?

 

YOUR ANSWER  —  No, not every Muslim is a barbarian, and I know that there are millions of Muslims who are law abiding and adhere to our Constitution and love our country, but it is those some 75 million who are radicalized I would say are barbarians.

 

MC RESPONSE  —  How generous of you to make that concession on behalf of a group of American citizens. My fervent prayer is that it will never be up to someone with your worldview to determine who is in each group. 

 

Peace, MC


MC RESPONSE  —  “Terrorists do not come from Christian churches”??? That is incredibly disingenuous of you — many of the worst acts of domestic terror over the 240 years of America’s existence have been done by Christian Americans… oh, but then you do go on to say that you would monitor SOME churches, apparently ones that you have personally identified as worthy of monitoring.  As far as who is eligible (or better said, at risk) for monitoring, you should keep in mind that if such monitoring does expand, it won’t be up to you to determine which groups are monitored… so it could be you, Hagee, and Jeffress. Still okay with it?

Okay Mike, name for me domestic terrorism done by “Christian Americans” and no you cannot use Terry McAuliffe either or the other guy.

(name withheld)


Response from Mike Challman, MRFF Supporter,

 

Your blind spots are so huge, Bobby, that I’m not sure you should still be driving a car.

For starters, you don’t get to exclude anyone from the list. I know what you’ll say… “But he is not ‘true Christians’ so his heinous act doesn’t count.”… to which I call BS.

So here is a handful of entirely valid examples, off the top of my head —

1 – Timothy McVeigh — his vile act of terror in Oklahoma City was in no small part based on his obsession with the Branch Davidians and their religious extremism, and the act was directly inspired by his desire to make a statement on their behalf.

2 – Ku Klux Klan — everything they ever did. Not Christian, you will claim? I say, what is the deal with those burning crosses then?

3 – Paul Hill, Michael Griffin, Robert Dear, Scott Roeder, John Salvi, and probably others — all terroristic murderers of people associated with abortion clinics. You don’t get to claim that it isn’t terror just because you think it was a good thing (I’m assuming you think so, please tell me if I’m mistaken).

4 – John David Adkisson — about as “Christian” as they come, in terms of the religious beliefs which he espoused. Shot up a Universalist church in TN about 10 years ago, because he thought their teaching was too liberal.
Again, don’t waste the energy to reply that none of them are “real” Christians. Each of them claims that mantle with the same fervency as you and me.

Peace, MC


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

1 Comment

  1. I would agree with Gingrich’s proposal for a Sharia Test of Muslims, but only if we implement a Mosaic Law test for Christians. Those Christians that adhere to the beliefs that gay men deserve the death penalty, they must kill all witches, kill rape victims, kill non-believers, kill innocent children, capture virgin girls as war spoils, etc, should be deported from America.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*