If I were anti US the first think I would do is swear allegiance to the US in order to get my foot in the door.

 

Correct. I don't think anyone has an issue with Newt saying you can't be in his administration if you're not loyal to the country. However, that's just a platitude that somehow people thought was original.

A few weeks ago Cain said that he would not appoint a Muslim to a cabinet position and there's been some controversy surrounding that. The debate moderator asked him about it and he said he would not be comfortable with a Muslim in his administration, then he went on to say that one must figure out which Muslims are trying to kill us and that he would not allow sharia law in the US. Romney scoffed at him and pointed out that sharia law will never happen here. Gingrich added that he would require loyalty oaths from Muslims, similar to how suspected Nazis and communists were treated in preceding times.

If Gingrich isn't prepared to ask the same vow of loyalty from a Christian, Jew, or Scientologist, then it's pretty simple discrimination.

Correct. I don't think anyone has an issue with Newt saying you can't be in his administration if you're not loyal to the country. However, that's just a platitude that somehow people thought was original.

 

The issue with Newt and Cain was that they are starting with the assumption that Muslims aren't loyal and would thus require special scrutiny. Gingrich endorses McCarthyism for Muslim loyalty and Cain says he would be hesitant to appoint a Muslim, if he would at all. Romney's response was that he would know and trust anyone he appoints, thus it wouldn't matter which religion they practiced and it wouldn't be a factor. The distinction between those views is sharp.

If Gingrich isn't prepared to ask the same vow of loyalty from a Christian, Jew, or Scientologist, then it's pretty simple discrimination.

 

Did he outright say he would only require that of a Muslim? From what I read of what you posted it did not look like that. I frankly think that an oath of loyalty to the United States should be required for all Federal Service. I mean an oath is just words, but it is better than nothing.

If Gingrich isn't prepared to ask the same vow

 

Newt and vows do not have a good history.

It amazes me that these are their real feelings. Would they really require someone born in the US, raised in the US, educated in the US to have to swear allegiance to the United States before they could get a spot in their White House? That smacks of religious discrimination. For conservatives who hold the constitution so dear, that spits in the face of it.

 

The reality for all politicians is they want loyalty to themselves first then country. Don't kid yourself. They hope to avoid at all costs being embarrased by the actions of someone they placed in the government. Even folks in the same party are subject to the same embarassment test. Look at the Weiner case. What he did didn't directly effect Obama, Pelosi etc, but they have rightfully called for his resignation, because it is inappropriate conduct for a person of power and they want to stop answering questions about him because he is a member of their party and they want ot end the embarrassment.

 

I never said I agreed with their positon, as I don't, but I also believe they are entitled to their position. Freedom of religon (or lack thereof) is a key component to the framework of our country.

 

I appreciate that the text was added by you, because I did watch the debate in itas entirety, and felt that Gingrich made a great point about the man lying to gain his citizenship. Duh. Sometimes Americans are so naive. Same issue I said in other threads abouts wars. Wars are not fought against countries any more-rather against organizations. they world has changed and we must change with it. The old rules of engagement no longer apply. Espionage and terrorism are the ways of the future.

 

Still interested to hear your comments, if any, on the media coverage of Joplin vs. New Orleans. (Many deaths in Missouri.)

GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed — when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, “You’re my enemy. I lied.” Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

 

(APPLAUSE)

 

GINGRICH: We did this — we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no

 

I see no issue with wanting people to swear a loyalty oath to the United States before having federal service positions. I also don't see him singling out Muslims.

 

How is that different than the POTUS having to swear an oath?

 

Still interested to hear your comments, if any, on the media coverage of Joplin vs. New Orleans. (Many deaths in Missouri.)

 

One of the items that has interested me due to lack of coverage has been the threat by some to not approve emergency funding for Joplin unless they got what they wanted in regards to the offsetting spending cuts. Maybe I've missed that coverage but that seems like something that I would throw out there if I was the news director. Are we really OK with playing politics while Joplin residents are looking to rebuild their lives? Did I miss the hue and cry from the media on this one?

It amazes me that these are their real feelings. Would they really require someone born in the US, raised in the US, educated in the US to have to swear allegiance to the United States before they could get a spot in their White House? That smacks of religious discrimination. For conservatives who hold the constitution so dear, that spits in the face of it.

 

How is having them swear an oath to the United States religious discrimination? Did he say they have to swear on a bible? I saw no mention of that. Religion has no impact on whether or not you're loyal to your country IMO.

How is having them swear an oath to the United States religious discrimination? Did he say they have to swear on a bible? I saw no mention of that. Religion has no impact on whether or not you're loyal to your country IMO.

 

Right. And his implication in context was that Muslims, in general, are less loyal to America.

Right. And his implication in context was that Muslims, in general, are less loyal to America.

 

His specific example was a recent one and one of the most recent would be that one. I think mentioning Timothy McVeigh would have been equally important, however he has faded from the public consciousness. I think that Gingrich was simply trying to bring something to mind that the average person would remember.

 

I understand your concern though.

One of the items that has interested me due to lack of coverage has been the threat by some to not approve emergency funding for Joplin unless they got what they wanted in regards to the offsetting spending cuts. Maybe I've missed that coverage but that seems like something that I would throw out there if I was the news director. Are we really OK with playing politics while Joplin residents are looking to rebuild their lives? Did I miss the hue and cry from the media on this one?

 

Very fair point Clyde. I continue to point out the number of DEATHS in Joplin vs. those in New Orleans. However, because of the media portrayal of the slowness and lack of decisiveness of the government toward the citizens of New Orleans-there was and is a racial side to that story. People died in Joplin of a worse tragedy and are busy rebuiling their lives and that story has become page 6 news. The media was critical of Bush for New Orleans. Obama was playing golf in Ireland and didn't return for the Joplin occurance. I have no problem with Obama doing what he did rather with the media coverage of the two similar events with one costing many more lives than the other.

 

The media has become a huge problem in our country.

His specific example was a recent one and one of the most recent would be that one. I think mentioning Timothy McVeigh would have been equally important, however he has faded from the public consciousness. I think that Gingrich was simply trying to bring something to mind that the average person would remember.

 

I understand your concern though.

 

That's how I took it as well. :thumb:

Amazing that people are supposed to suppress their real feelings on ideas if it isn't pc. More amazing is that more people DIED in the tragedy of Joplin Missouri than in the horrid disaster of Katrina and New Orleans, but where is the outcry of injustice from the media and the federal governments lack of help to help rebuild that town?

 

I keep telling you that the tipping point is near and people are fed up with the entitlement programs...we must have a safety net, but the net has grown too large and has gone on for far too long.

 

Pretty sure about 10-15x more people died in Katrina.