Last night, following the Jihad attack in Nice, France, Newt Gingrich stirred up a firestorm when he told Sean Hannity that because 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.” He also said “modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens.” It is vitally important to draw clear constitutional, legal, historical, philosophical, and prudent policy lines.  In this special edition, Daniel notes that while there are very problematic and unconstitutional aspects to Newt’s solution as it relates to U.S. citizens, the former speaker’s diagnosis of the problem and his solution as it relates to future immigration is spot on.  There is a degree of constitutional illiteracy that is apparent both in Gingrich’s statement and in the words of his critics.  It is against our Constitution and values to carte blanche take away First Amendment rights from U.S. citizens or deport them for simply harboring a supremacist ideology.  At the same time, it is completely constitutional and rooted in our history and tradition not to willingly import those who subscribe to a political system incompatible with our values and dangerous to our survival.      As it relates to Islamic supremacists who have already obtained U.S. citizenship but have not broken any laws, Daniel explores true constitutional and prudent policies that will save western civilization and are indeed rooted in our history and tradition without violating the Bill of Rights. Important quotes: “Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”~ Gouverneur Morris, at the Constitutional Convention in 1787[i] "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source." ~ Chief Justice Marshall 1812 [ii]   Importing the Values of the Middle East The Senate’s final act before recess? More immigration from the Middle East! 7 Constitutional Steps to Protect the Homeland Against Islamic Jihad Muslim reformist, Dr. Zhudi Jasser’s open letter to the media on ignoring true moderate Muslims   [i] Gouverneur Morris, “Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787,” Elliot’s Debates, vol. V, as republished on the Teaching American History website, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol5/0809_1787/. Morris’s importance as a founder is best captured by Madison’s claim that the actual text of the Constitution “fairly belongs to the pen of Mr. Morris.” Max Farrand, “The Framing Of The Constitution Of The United States,” (Kindle Location 1744).  Kindle Edition.  [ii] The Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 136 (1812). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices