http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-calls-complete-shutdown-muslims-entering-u-s-n475821
QuoteRepublican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump on Monday called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," the most dramatic response yet to the string of terrorist attacks that have Americans increasingly on edge.
Trump released a statement citing polling data he says shows "there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population." "Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life," Trump said.
God I love this guy, no matter the outcome, we owe him a great debt of gratitude for slashing through the Marxist/Leninist PC penumbra of destruction enveloping the United States, I would very much like him to serve as Ted Cruz's Secretary of State in the event Cruz wins, and I will vote Trump against any Marxist/Leninist no matter what....
I've been saying this for years. Islam is incompatible with the founding principles of Freedom. At the very least, they must publically renounce Islam. Even then, I don't think I would trust them, but it's a start.
I suggest The American people study and research the creation of the Pakistani State out of India's independence, Muslims infiltrate a society then try to dominate it. Learn from History
Quote from: carlb on December 07, 2015, 04:16:21 PM
I've been saying this for years. Islam is incompatible with the founding principles of Freedom. At the very least, they must publically renounce Islam. Even then, I don't think I would trust them, but it's a start.
Great point. And that's exactly why Ben Carson made that statement about why a Muslim cannot be President. Our constitution and their ideology cannot function together, and a Muslim who renounces Islam is not a Muslim. I've read enough passages of the Koran to know that if you follow it, and if you began with a "full deck" before following it, well...you certainly lost a few cards in the interim.
Quote from: Traninit on December 07, 2015, 05:35:23 PM
Great point. And that's exactly why Ben Carson made that statement about why a Muslim cannot be President. Our constitution and their ideology cannot function together, and a Muslim who renounces Islam is not a Muslim. I've read enough passages of the Koran to know that if you follow it, and if you began with a "full deck" before following it, well...you certainly lost a few cards in the interim.
Which is precisely why the muslim in the white house lied about his islamic faith!
Sounds good to me.
Quote from: Tacoma on December 07, 2015, 05:41:27 PM
Which is precisely why the muslim in the white house lied about his islamic faith!
Yesiree Bob. No doubt he has a "holiday tree" at the WH....and the stockings were hung by Obozo with care, the smell of Halal treats, permeating the air. :biggrin:
Oh I am SO VOTING FOR TRUMP!!!!
I am all in for this guy and for stopping any more of the Islamic enemy from setting foot on our soil! They have shown us over and over that they are our enemies and want us dead. How many of our dead does it take? How many hideously murdered innocents do we have to bury before we wake up? These Muslim reptiles must be seen for what they are and dealt with accordingly! They are animals!
These are the first ones that Trump needs to focus on deporting. Every stinking Muslim POS on our soil needs to get the boot and be shown the door, PRONTO!!!
Quote from: Vaslovik on December 07, 2015, 11:08:43 PM
Oh I am SO VOTING FOR TRUMP!!!!
I am all in for this guy and for stopping any more of the Islamic enemy from setting foot on our soil! They have shown us over and over that they are our enemies and want us dead. How many of our dead does it take? How many hideously murdered innocents do we have to bury before we wake up? These Muslim reptiles must be seen for what they are and dealt with accordingly! They are animals!
These are the first ones that Trump needs to focus on deporting. Every stinking Muslim POS on our soil needs to get the boot and be shown the door, PRONTO!!!
What specific pogrom do you propose for this internal purge, and how do you propose it NOT being used on you by anyone else, so inclined to sanitize our population?
Nah, it will never happen to
meeeeeeeeee....... Just ask the Jews. If you can find any.
A related issue here is this: how do we even FIND these people, prior to tossing them out?
We damn sure won't get any help from other Mussies.
QuoteThough President Barack Obama claimed that America must "enlist Muslim communities" to combat terrorism in his Sunday evening Oval Office address, former FBI Counterterrorism Agent John Guandolo said on Monday's Breitbart News Daily (6AM-9AM EST on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125) that since 9/11, "we collectively have received nearly zero help from the Muslim Community."
Guandolo, who pointed out on Friday's Breitbart News Daily that a "vast majority" of U.S. mosques and Islamic centers are a part of a much larger "jihadi network," told host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon that though Muslim community leaders "certainly give the air as if they are helping," if one looks at the "major Islamic organizations, the major Islamic centers in the United States," they have "condemned all of the counter-terrorism policies and they've gotten the government to kowtow to them, to turn only to them for advice."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/07/fmr-fbi-counterterrorism-agent-weve-received-nearly-zero-help-from-u-s-muslim-community-since-911/
Quote from: Vaslovik on December 07, 2015, 11:08:43 PM
Oh I am SO VOTING FOR TRUMP!!!!
I am all in for this guy and for stopping any more of the Islamic enemy from setting foot on our soil! They have shown us over and over that they are our enemies and want us dead. How many of our dead does it take? How many hideously murdered innocents do we have to bury before we wake up? These Muslim reptiles must be seen for what they are and dealt with accordingly! They are animals!
These are the first ones that Trump needs to focus on deporting. Every stinking Muslim POS on our soil needs to get the boot and be shown the door, PRONTO!!!
And why are you so certain "this time" he'll keep his word, based on his track record?
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 04:19:39 AM
And why are you so certain "this time" he'll keep his word, based on his track record?
Perhaps you would be good enough to tell me of his track record.
Quote from: Vaslovik on December 08, 2015, 04:49:07 AM
Perhaps you would be good enough to tell me of his track record.
Sure, I'll post much of it here, so keep checking this post for updates, or until you get who Trump really is.
Lets start here, and while your digest that, I'll fix breakfast then come back and post the rest.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Tax_Reform.htm
We must have universal health careI'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.
For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background checkI generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Tolerate diversity; prosecute hate crimes against gaysOne of our next president's most important goals must be to induce a greater tolerance for diversity. The senseless murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming-where an innocent boy was killed because of his sexual orientation- turned my stomach. We must work towards an America where these kinds of hate crimes are unthinkable.
Quote from: Vaslovik on December 08, 2015, 04:49:07 AM
Perhaps you would be good enough to tell me of his track record.
Is that enough, or do you need more proof He's Not a Conservative". ?
One more thread that might help clarify the issue.
I'll pick it up from here, but you can start at the beginning if you like.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/trump-is-in/540/
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 05:28:56 AM
Is that enough, or do you need more proof He's Not a Conservative". ?
Hell Trump was a democrat and just become a republican. So that makes him a RINO, not a conservative.
Quote from: walkstall on December 08, 2015, 06:48:29 AM
Hell Trump was a democrat and just become a republican. So that makes him a RINO, not a conservative.
I guess it's all about "FEELINGS". :glare:
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 06:14:15 AM
One more thread that might help clarify the issue.
I'll pick it up from here, but you can start at the beginning if you like.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/trump-is-in/540/
Okay Solar, you have well made your point. He's not a conservative. I find this disappointing. For me to hear someone speak the truth about Islam and saying we need to keep them out of our country is a most welcome thing as I regard Islam as the greatest evil in the world, not least because of the way women are treated under Islam, but it would seem Mr. Trump is a mixed bag. That he horrifies the Left I do like a lot, and also that he has a similar effect on the Republican establishment.
That said, he would seem to be in favor of cloning Obamacare and rebranding it. Obamacare was always about forcing profits into the coffers of the corporations out of our pockets, whether or not we wanted what they are selling, and whether or not we can even afford it. It's national healthcare blackmail. If Trump is supporting that I'm no longer in his corner. Then there is assault weapons ban. What is termed an assault weapon in politics is really just a semi-automatic rifle incapable of select fire for full auto, so it's BS to even call it an "assault weapon." Moreover it's exceedingly rare for them to be used in crimes. The overwhelming favorite of urban criminals would seem to be the 9mm handgun.
I just wish someone truly conservative would come along who sees Islam for what it really is, a militant supremacist ideology under color of religion, spread by the sword and with the goal of enslaving the entire world in dark ages tyranny.
Quote from: Tacoma on December 07, 2015, 03:33:20 PMI will vote Trump against any Marxist/Leninist no matter what....
I think Trump is a loose cannon and an embarrassment.
Quote from: Vaslovik on December 08, 2015, 08:08:22 AM
Okay Solar, you have well made your point. He's not a conservative. I find this disappointing. For me to hear someone speak the truth about Islam and saying we need to keep them out of our country is a most welcome thing as I regard Islam as the greatest evil in the world, not least because of the way women are treated under Islam, but it would seem Mr. Trump is a mixed bag. That he horrifies the Left I do like a lot, and also that he has a similar effect on the Republican establishment.
That said, he would seem to be in favor of cloning Obamacare and rebranding it. Obamacare was always about forcing profits into the coffers of the corporations out of our pockets, whether or not we wanted what they are selling, and whether or not we can even afford it. It's national healthcare blackmail. If Trump is supporting that I'm no longer in his corner. Then there is assault weapons ban. What is termed an assault weapon in politics is really just a semi-automatic rifle incapable of select fire for full auto, so it's BS to even call it an "assault weapon." Moreover it's exceedingly rare for them to be used in crimes. The overwhelming favorite of urban criminals would seem to be the 9mm handgun.
I just wish someone truly conservative would come along who sees Islam for what it really is, a militant supremacist ideology under color of religion, spread by the sword and with the goal of enslaving the entire world in dark ages tyranny.
Then you're in the Cruz camp. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Vaslovik on December 08, 2015, 08:08:22 AM
Okay Solar, you have well made your point. He's not a conservative. I find this disappointing. For me to hear someone speak the truth about Islam and saying we need to keep them out of our country is a most welcome thing as I regard Islam as the greatest evil in the world, not least because of the way women are treated under Islam, but it would seem Mr. Trump is a mixed bag. That he horrifies the Left I do like a lot, and also that he has a similar effect on the Republican establishment.
That said, he would seem to be in favor of cloning Obamacare and rebranding it. Obamacare was always about forcing profits into the coffers of the corporations out of our pockets, whether or not we wanted what they are selling, and whether or not we can even afford it. It's national healthcare blackmail. If Trump is supporting that I'm no longer in his corner. Then there is assault weapons ban. What is termed an assault weapon in politics is really just a semi-automatic rifle incapable of select fire for full auto, so it's BS to even call it an "assault weapon." Moreover it's exceedingly rare for them to be used in crimes. The overwhelming favorite of urban criminals would seem to be the 9mm handgun.
I just wish someone truly conservative would come along who sees Islam for what it really is, a militant supremacist ideology under color of religion, spread by the sword and with the goal of enslaving the entire world in dark ages tyranny.
Your premise is sound and as Solar points out we do have Cruz as a true conservative. All the others claim to be conservative, but not anywhere close to Cruz.
Quote from: carlb on December 07, 2015, 04:16:21 PM
I've been saying this for years. Islam is incompatible with the founding principles of Freedom. At the very least, they must publically renounce Islam. Even then, I don't think I would trust them, but it's a start.
In addition to renouncing Islam, they must agree to stop forcing women to wear garbage bags or headscarves or anything which is dictated by religion. I see a woman in Kroger's often with a little boy. She is dressed with a hijab and long rags and he is dressed as an American child. This must stop if they are to live in the US. Someday, I'll get those pork chops in her cart, too, when I catch the kid not watching me.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on December 08, 2015, 08:57:48 AM
In addition to renouncing Islam, they must agree to stop forcing women to wear garbage bags or headscarves or anything which is dictated by religion. I see a woman in Kroger's often with a little boy. She is dressed with a hijab and long rags and he is dressed as an American child. This must stop if they are to live in the US. Someday, I'll get those pork chops in her cart, too, when I catch the kid not watching me.
Super glue a quarter to the floor, point it out to him, while he struggles with the coin, slip her the meat... :laugh:
I'm in the Cruz camp, but I do enjoy hearing Trump stick it to Obama. He is giving Liberals heart attacks today with his pronouncement, "No more Muslims." I think it is a good idea to stop immigration from certain Middle Eastern countries until methods are developed to certify them as safe. As for it being Unconstitutional, the Constitution does not apply to everyone in the world, not to those living in other countries either. It applies in the US. He is also correct when he says that American citizens who go to fight for ISIS should not be allowed to reenter the US. Ever. In fact, I think there is a law which says if you fight for a foreign country, you lose US citizenship.
Anyway, Trump is toying with the Libs and I love it.
Hard to miss the media frenzy over this.
They're acting like they finally found the Silver Bullet to kill "Trump the Warewolf"... LOL
Watch it backfire and Trump's pol numbers rise some more. :ttoung: The MSM is so out to lunch.
Most of you probably know this, but not having television, I don't get as much news as I'd like, but they probably are doing the same on television.
They keep saying he wants a ban on Muslims coming into this country. PERIOD!
Problem is, that was only HALF the statement.
He said UNTIL we get a handle on this terrorism problem.
They only make him stronger whe everyone sees they're spreading LIES to destroy him.
Every unjust attack is making him stronger.
TED CRUZ stands alone in not condemning Trump on this. They do all act as petty rinos and libs.
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 08:52:54 AM
Then you're in the Cruz camp. :thumbsup:
I may well be, I shall have to look into this Cruz fellow in detail.
Cruz disagrees with keeping all muslims out, with grace.
Quote
"I do not agree with his proposals. I do not think it is the right solution," Cruz said.
...
"I recognize that a great many folks in the media would prefer that anybody running for president engage as an ongoing theater critic criticizing the proposals of others," he said. "I do not believe the world needs my voice added to that chorus of critics."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-disagreed/index.html
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 10:45:31 AM
Cruz disagrees with keeping all muslims out, with grace.
Well then he might not be my guy. Dick Cheney is saying the same kind of thing, and I don't care for that either. I want them out of my country!
Quote from: Dori on December 08, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
I think Trump is a loose cannon and an embarrassment.
Then you have been hopelessly Grubered....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/donald-trump-muslims.html?_r=0
QuoteAs denunciations rained down on him from Washington and around the world, Donald J. Trump on Tuesday defended his call to block all Muslims from entering the United States, casting it as a temporary move in response to Islamic State terrorism and invoking President Franklin D. Roosevelt's actions toward Japanese, German and Italian aliens during World War II as precedent.
Critics ranging from the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, a Republican, to the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, a Democrat, assailed Mr. Trump's proposal as self-defeating and un-American. "Tell Donald Trump: Hate is not an American value," Hillary Clinton wrote on Twitter.
The "super PAC" supporting Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, unveiled its first attack ad against Mr. Trump, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina called him a "xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot."
But Senator Ted Cruz, who is vying for much the same base of support that Mr. Trump now enjoys, declined to join in the scolding. "I commend Donald Trump for standing up and focusing America's attention on the need to secure our borders," he said at the Capitol.
Trump has totally outed the rino party, only an idiot would think that party conservative, they are tripping over themselves in their leftist zeal to strike out at America and keep it from re-emerging in greatness, Trump's proposal is perfectly sound, and perfectly legal and constitutional, not to mention marinated in common sense, and get this, its not even close to as savage as what the democrats did to the Japanese American's in WW II, not even remotely!
You think making immigration criteria dependent on what religion you follow is completely legal and constitutional?
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
You think making immigration criteria dependent on what religion you follow is completely legal and constitutional?
No, of course it isn't constitutional.
Immigration laws have to be decided by Congress. They couldn't limit immigration by religion, but they could do it by country. But, being Islam is practiced in every country in the world, it would be hard to eliminate it.
Unfortunately, this recent attack was carried out by an American born terrorist.
Same with most of the terrorists in Paris. They were home grown too.
If you think that is a strawman argument, than you don't know what a strawman argument is. What I described is literally what Trump is proposing, please let me know how it differs.
Islam is well recognized in the U.S. as a religion. Just because you don't want it to be, doesn't make it so. In general, the government doesn't place many criteria on what a religion is, for very good reason. That's why religions like the pastafarians and jedis are legally registered religions in the U.S. If you want to push this line of reasoning, do so with law and not fantasy.
I say it wouldn't be constitutional and you reply with a federal law? The constitution clearly trumps any federal law. I don't even understand why I would need to type that sentence. Anyone with a basic understanding of the constitution should get it.
A president could easily exclude everyone immigrating from muslim dominated countries. He would not be able to exclude only Muslims from those countries.
ok.. Here's one way a president could constitutionally exclude all muslims... He could completely turn off immigration to anyone.
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
You think making immigration criteria dependent on what religion you follow is completely legal and constitutional?
It is legal, and constitutional, its been done before, and Obama is doing it right now, and you and the other Grubered presence on the page are completely unaware of it, in other words, you are perfect examples of what is commonly referred to as, "low information voters!"
Currently Barack Hussein Obama and his state department are refusing to accept, and in some cases even returning(deporting)any Christians attempting to immigrate to the USA via Syria, Libya, and Iraq!
Immigration is not a right of anyone, indeed the USA closed down all immigration for different periods of time during the last century, lifting the ban as recently as 1965!
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees
No room in America for Christian refugeesQuoteAmerica is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year. There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted. Why? Because the Department of State is adhering with all the rigidity of a Soviet era bureaucracy to the rule that only people at risk from massacres launched by the regime qualify for refugee status. The rapes of Christian women and the butchery of Christian children do not count. No matter how moved Americans were this Christmas season by the plight of their fellow Christ followers in Syria and Iraq, no matter how horrific the visuals of beheadings, enslavement, and mass murder, the Christians fleeing death do not engender the compassion of this president.
The Christians are being raped, tortured, and murdered by militias, not by the Syrian government. This technicality condemns them to continue to be victims without hope. And this technicality is being adhered to with all the tenacity with which President Franklin D. Roosevelt's State Department manipulated quotas and created subterfuges to keep out the Jews fleeing the oppression of Nazi Germany. Obama no more wants the Middle East's Christian refugees than Roosevelt wanted Europe's Jewish refugees.
We have seen in the last several weeks that President Obama has no difficulty using his "phone and his pen," as he dramatically boasts, to circumvent the law. When it comes to immigration, he had no difficulty enacting an amnesty that a federal judge subsequently ruled unconstitutional. He has had no problem circumventing Congress to change the relationship with Cuba. This president has shown that he will push back on the constraints of law when he wants to get something done.
But there are not even such constraints when it comes to the Middle East's Christians fleeing the brutality of ISIS and Al Qaeda. The Department of State chooses to adhere to a definition of refugees as people persecuted by their own government. What difference does it make which army imperils the lives of innocent Christians? Christians are still be slaughtered for being Christian, and their government is incapable of protecting them. Does some group have to come along—as Jewish groups did during the Holocaust—and sardonically guarantee that these are real human beings?
ISLAM IS NOT JUST A RELIGION. THAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO GET THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
It is a social system. it is a political system (a theocracy). it is economic system. It is completely and utterly totalitarian!
In all of these, it is completely and directly opposed to everything the United States stands for.
NO MUSLIM CAN TRUTHFULLY TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE US and that includes our Muslim Congressmen.
They cannot swear to uphold our Constitution, since no man made law can be greater than the Koran.
Unlike every other religion that has ever come to this country, it demands that its adherents conquer, all other religions.
It creates different classes of citizens. Muslims claim religious freedom, when their own religion forbids it. No religious test? Islam demands it.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Anyone who is in favor of allowing people sword to our destruction to move into this country is a traitorous dog, who wants to destroy the US and should be shot as the mad dog they are. Islam is at war with every other population on the face of the Earth. Someone needs to explain to liberals that every situation is NOT and analogy of the way blacks were once treated in this country, so they need to stop feeling guilty and/or acting as if they are. There is something insane about letting Muslims - OUR ENEMIES - into the country. While we keep out Middle Eastern Christians - OUR FRIENDS. If you feel such great guilt over the way the US acted in the past, slash your own wrists, don't assuage your guilt by bringing in some 7th century savage to do it for you - along with those of your neighbors.
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER!!! They believe they can hold rational conversations with madmen.
Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 02:22:25 PM
It is legal, and constitutional, its been done before, and Obama is doing it right now, and you and the other Grubered presence on the page are completely unaware of it, in other words, you are perfect examples of what is commonly referred to as, "low information voters!"
Currently Barack Hussein Obama and his state department are refusing to accept, and in some cases even returning(deporting)any Christians attempting to immigrate to the USA via Syria, Libya, and Iraq!
Immigration is not a right of anyone, indeed the USA closed down all immigration for different periods of time during the last century, lifting the ban as recently as 1955!
Religion is not currently used as a test for immigration outside of conspiracy theories. Just because someone of a religion is denied entry does not mean they were denied because of that religion.
But that doesn't matter, because even if Obama was doing it now, it would still be just as unconstitutional.
As I said, the president is free to close all immigration. He just can't make a religious test part of the criteria.
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 02:43:59 PM
Religion is not currently used as a test for immigration outside of conspiracy theories. Just because someone of a religion is denied entry does not mean they were denied because of that religion.
But that doesn't matter, because even if Obama was doing it now, it would still be just as unconstitutional.
As I said, the president is free to close all immigration. He just can't make a religious test part of the criteria.
Yes he can, immigrants have no constitutional rights whatsoever, the same reason the children of illegal aliens have zero constitutional expectation of birth right citizenship applies! You are proceeding upon your emotions, not from factual precedent.... :ttoung:
http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/09/obama-set-to-admit-tons-more-syrian-refugees-but-look-who-hes-deporting/
Obama set to admit tons more Syrian refugees...but LOOK who he's deportingQuoteAs reported by Bloombergview.com, "The Obama administration is preparing to announce a plan to admit more refugees over the next two years, but at this point the numbers being proposed are too small to relieve the crisis streaming out of Syria. Wednesday at the White House, the most senior national security officials will discuss raising the limit on the number of refugees from around the world allowed to enter the United States — from 70,000 this year to 85,000 next year and 100,000 in fiscal 2017, according to three administration officials. If members of the National Security Council Principals Committee agree on the plan, it will be sent to President Obama's desk, and administration sources say he is likely to quickly approve it.
President Obama spoke about the refugee crisis Tuesday at the White House alongside the king of Spain. He said it was important for the U.S. to "take our share" of Syrian refugees and reinforced his pledge to allow 10,000 more into the country than previously planned in 2016.
"This is going to require cooperation with all the European countries and the United States and the international community in order to ensure that people are safe; that they are treated with shared humanity; and that we ultimately have to deal with the source of the problem, which is the ongoing crisis in Syria," he said."
However willing the Obama administration is to bring in more Syrian Muslims, it is apparently not so welcoming to Christians. As World Net Daily reports, "more than half of the 27 Iraqi Christians the Obama administration has been holding for the past six months at an ICE detention center in Otay Mesa, California are set to be deported in coming weeks,
Too many people in this country are so caught up in showing how "inclusive" and "unprejudiced" they are, that they've lost all survival instinct. Why would you want to allow people sworn to kill you into this country? The only way I'd be in favor of letting Muslims in was if they promised to kill only politicians and/or Hollyweird stars! And if you think thats a terrible thing to say, remember, these people who always travel with armed guards, are trying to bring in people to attack us regular folks!
Quote from: mdgiles on December 08, 2015, 02:34:58 PM
ISLAM IS NOT JUST A RELIGION. THAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO GET THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
It is a social system. it is a political system (a theocracy). it is economic system. It is completely and utterly totalitarian!
In all of these, it is completely and directly opposed to everything the United States stands for.
NO MUSLIM CAN TRUTHFULLY TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE US and that includes our Muslim Congressmen.
They cannot swear to uphold our Constitution, since no man made law can be greater than the Koran.
Unlike every other religion that has ever come to this country, it demands that its adherents conquer, all other religions.
It creates different classes of citizens. Muslims claim religious freedom, when their own religion forbids it. No religious test? Islam demands it.
I believe you are correct.
Quote"Islam is much more than a formal religion: it is an integral way of life. In many ways it is a more determining factor in the experiece of its followers than any other world religion. The Muslim ("One who submits") lives face to face with Allah at all times and will introduce no separation between his life and his religion, he politics and his faith. With its strong emphasis on the brotherhood of men cooperationg to fulfill the will of Allah, Islam has become one of the most influential religions in the world today." (Islam fly cover, John Alden Williams 1962)
I think we use the term "religion" rather loosely, mdgiles, you are correct, it is
a system that completely envelops its adherents. ... almost like liberalism...!
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
You think making immigration criteria dependent on what religion you follow is completely legal and constitutional?
I don't think that a person who lives in another country, was born there, and has never set foot in the US has Constitutional rights.
Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 02:51:14 PM
Yes he can, immigrants have no constitutional rights whatsoever, the same reason the children of illegal aliens have zero constitutional expectation of birth right citizenship applies! You are proceeding upon your emotions, not from factual precedent.... :ttoung:
Again, what you want to be legal precedent, and what actually is legal precedent are very different.
Wait.. you're just trolling me now, right? No birth right a legal precendent? I mean, giving a counterexample to your own argument?
Quote
Obama set to admit tons more Syrian refugees...but LOOK who he's deporting
Again, deporting someone who happens to be Christian is not the same as deporting someone because they are Christian. It's an easy concept to understand.
Quote from: mdgiles on December 08, 2015, 02:54:07 PM
Too many people in this country are so caught up in showing how "inclusive" and "unprejudiced" they are, that they've lost all survival instinct. Why would you want to allow people sworn to kill you into this country? The only way I'd be in favor of letting Muslims in was if they promised to kill only politicians and/or Hollyweird stars! And if you think thats a terrible thing to say, remember, these people who always travel with armed guards, are trying to bring in people to attack us regular folks!
Tacoma, pay attention here! This is what a decent straw man argument looks like.
First, he paints a ridiculous argument. In this case that ridiculous argument is wanting to be inclusive and unprejudiced as a reason for accepting muslim immigrants, and then he easily knocks it down.
It'd be a perfect straw man if he directed it strictly at me, but by generalizing to "many people", I'll have to only give it 6/10.
mrclose, I claim it's unconstitutional. You try to show it's constitutional by citing a federal law? We've been here already.
Interesting discussion....
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
"Republicans are afraid of widows and infants" - how does that rate on the strawman scale?
:cursing: :cursing: :cursing: yeah, it didn't do anything to endear me, either!
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 03:30:39 PM
Again, what you want to be legal precedent, and what actually is legal precedent are very different.
Wait.. you're just trolling me now, right? No birth right a legal precendent? I mean, giving a counterexample to your own argument?
Again, deporting someone who happens to be Christian is not the same as deporting someone because they are Christian. It's an easy concept to understand.
Tacoma, pay attention here! This is what a decent straw man argument looks like.
First, he paints a ridiculous argument. In this case that ridiculous argument is wanting to be inclusive and unprejudiced as a reason for accepting muslim immigrants, and then he easily knocks it down.
It'd be a perfect straw man if he directed it strictly at me, but by generalizing to "many people", I'll have to only give it 6/10.
Trolling you? You're a double digit IQ'd D-bag, ignorant of what the law is and is not, your whole supposition preposterously kooky...
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 03:44:44 PM
mrclose, I claim it's unconstitutional. You try to show it's constitutional by citing a federal law? We've been here already.
It may be impractical but it is not unconstitutional. Immigration law is congresses reasonability and any rights a immigrants have are rights granted by congress to them by federal law! If an immigrant did have full constitutional rights they could not be deported once here!
The concept that congress has full power over immigration was recently upheld in the SCOTUS ruling that the Arizona Immigration law was unconstitutional because it intruded on congresses powers granted under the constitution. The President can't do this but congress could!
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 03:30:39 PM
First, he paints a ridiculous argument. In this case that ridiculous argument is wanting to be inclusive and unprejudiced as a reason for accepting muslim immigrants, and then he easily knocks it down.
It'd be a perfect straw man if he directed it strictly at me, but by generalizing to "many people", I'll have to only give it 6/10.
IOW, you have no answer to my argument, so you label it a "straw man" and attempt to hand wave it aside. Unfortunately there are a number of precedents on who Congress can allow into this country - using any test they so desire. What possible reason could the US have for accepting these refugees, especially considering that they had already reached a refuge next door in Muslim Turkey. If you want to help the Turks take care of them , that's one thing; but providing a conduit for terrorists is insane.
AND WE ALREADY KNOW ISIS IS GOING TO USE REFUGEES AS A CONDUIT INTO THE WEST! In case you missed it, they told us. Not only that, but why aren't these Muslim, Arab refugees being taken in by their rich Muslim, Arab, fellow religionists in the Gulf States? I realize it's cool to stand in front of the mirror and admires the soft glow, put off by the halo of your moral perfection, but I prefer to keep an ocean between myself, my family and people who are sworn to kill them. If you really feel for those Muslim refugees go over to Syria as an aid worker. That worked out really well for David Haines and Kayla Mueller!
Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 04:00:40 PM
Trolling you? You're a double digit IQ'd D-bag, ignorant of what the law is and is not, your whole supposition preposterously kooky...
And now we've hit ad hominem.
Quote from: Hoofer on December 08, 2015, 03:56:16 PM
"Republicans are afraid of widows and infants" - how does that rate on the strawman scale?
:cursing: :cursing: :cursing: yeah, it didn't do anything to endear me, either!
I'd give it a pretty low straw man score since it's not really an argument that they then go on to argue against. It's more of a willful misinterpretation? I bet there's an actual name for that nonsense as well but I'm no debate scholar.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on December 08, 2015, 03:30:14 PM
I don't think that a person who lives in another country, was born there, and has never set foot in the US has Constitutional rights.
This. This here is the best counter-argument implying that a ban on Islam immigration might be constitutional.
You need to look at the specific "right" to figure it out. The first amendment is specifically worded as a limitation as to what the government can or can not do. It's not worded as something that a person is allowed to do. This is in contrast to say, the 4th amendment which is about people and is a great example.
This is why Guantanamo exists. The 4th amendment more or less doesn't work for a non citizen who has never set foot on US soil. We can hold 'em as long as we want without charging them. BUT... in Guantanamo, we do have to respect (some) religious freedoms. That's why they get their korans and rugs.
Also, immigration law is ultimately decided at the immigration desk, which would mean the person does step foot on US soil, but I think my previous point more fully covers it.
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
You think making immigration criteria dependent on what religion you follow is completely legal and constitutional?
A foreign person has NO RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE....therefore no rights can be afforded by the Constitution...even the deluded
Citizen of the world no borders stupidity shared by most leftists.
So next question. Why are Libtards - who are constantly warning us about the "dangers" of the fictitious Christian theocracy - in such a sweat to import the actual Muslim theocracy?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rupert-murdoch-trumps-immigration-stance-846983
QuoteThe GOP presidential candidate shared the media mogul remarks about Muslims to his more than five million followers.
Rupert Murdoch spoke out about Donald Trump's recent remarks calling for a "complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States.
"Has Trump gone too far?" tweeted Murdoch, without answering his own question. "Regardless, public is obsessed on radical Muslim dangers, Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense."
Has Trump gone too far? Regardless, public is obsessed on radical Muslim dangers, Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.
— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) December 8, 2015
The media owned political party is in full on desperation mode, Murdoch being no fool, see's the wisdom in Trump's intent, and so too do tens of millions of American's! I fully believe that the rino establishment is not only capable of intentionally tanking the election, but the nation itself as the reality dawns upon them that they are in the process of being eliminated by the American people!
Quote from: redbeard on December 08, 2015, 04:20:08 PM
It may be impractical but it is not unconstitutional. Immigration law is congresses reasonability and any rights a immigrants have are rights granted by congress to them by federal law! If an immigrant did have full constitutional rights they could not be deported once here!
The concept that congress has full power over immigration was recently upheld in the SCOTUS ruling that the Arizona Immigration law was unconstitutional because it intruded on congresses powers granted under the constitution. The President can't do this but congress could!
Federal law can not override constitutional law. The first amendment does not allow this sort of religious test.
If what you were saying were true, it would apply to other articles and amendments. So, for example, congress could ban guns under the commerce clause. Clearly, this is not the case.
Quote from: mdgiles on December 08, 2015, 04:20:17 PM
IOW, you have no answer to my argument, so you label it a "straw man" and attempt to hand wave it aside.
It was a straw man. Your argument is a rambling mess. Let me try to deconstruct it.
Quote
Unfortunately there are a number of precedents on who Congress can allow into this country - using any test they so desire.
I don't believe there are any legal precedents for denying immigration based on religion. I believe that test is specifically unconstitutional.
QuoteWhat possible reason could the US have for accepting these refugees, especially considering that they had already reached a refuge next door in Muslim Turkey.
This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a ban is constitutional.
QuoteIf you want to help the Turks take care of them , that's one thing; but providing a conduit for terrorists is insane. AND WE ALREADY KNOW ISIS IS GOING TO USE REFUGEES AS A CONDUIT INTO THE WEST! In case you missed it, they told us.
Not only that, but why aren't these Muslim, Arab refugees being taken in by their rich Muslim, Arab, fellow religionists in the Gulf States? I realize it's cool to stand in front of the mirror and admires the soft glow, put off by the halo of your moral perfection, but I prefer to keep an ocean between myself, my family and people who are sworn to kill them. If you really feel for those Muslim refugees go over to Syria as an aid worker. That worked out really well for David Haines and Kayla Mueller!
You seem to be confusing immigration and refugees. They're different.
You also seem to be confusing a religious test and a country of origin test. To be clear, It would be perfectly constitutional for the president to decide not to take in any more Syrians (either via refugee status or immigration).
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 04:41:04 PM
Federal law can not override constitutional law. The first amendment does not allow this sort of religious test.
If what you were saying were true, it would apply to other articles and amendments. So, for example, congress could ban guns under the commerce clause. Clearly, this is not the case.
It was a straw man. Your argument is a rambling mess. Let me try to deconstruct it.
I don't believe there are any legal precedents for denying immigration based on religion. I believe that test is specifically unconstitutional.
If you would read the constitution you keep referring to Congress is given the sole right to determine immigration law by that same constitution! I do not believe it would be a wise or good course to restrict immigration by religion BUT I do believe the constitution grants them the power!
With that said a smarter way to accomplish the same thing is to put very restrictive quotas on immigration from the effected countries. You can raise the bar to qualify for entry by requiring verifiable identification and history. Is it too much to ask someone seeking Asylum for proof of persecution? Raise the level of red tape and enforce existing law!!
Quote from: redbeard on December 08, 2015, 05:04:40 PM
If you would read the constitution you keep referring to Congress is given the sole right to determine immigration law by that same constitution! I do not believe it would be a wise or good course to restrict immigration by religion BUT I do believe the constitution grants them the power!
Article I essentially says, "hey congress, only you get to make the laws about immigration"
First amendment essentially says, "hey congress, you can't make laws limiting religion"
They aren't contradictory, and they both apply. Congress can make laws about immigration that don't limit religion.
Article I does not say, "Hey congress, you get to make any law you want about immigration ignoring the rest of the constitution"
Quote
With that said a smarter way to accomplish the same thing is to put very restrictive quotas on immigration from the effected countries. You can raise the bar to qualify for entry by requiring verifiable identification and history. Is it too much to ask someone seeking Asylum for proof of persecution? Raise the level of red tape and enforce existing law!!
Just don't make a religious test for it. NO SYRIANS ALLOWED is perfectly legal. But NO MUSLIMS ALLOWED, no good.
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 04:41:04 PM
Federal law can not override constitutional law. The first amendment does not allow this sort of religious test.
If what you were saying were true, it would apply to other articles and amendments. So, for example, congress could ban guns under the commerce clause. Clearly, this is not the case.
It was a straw man. Your argument is a rambling mess. Let me try to deconstruct it.
I don't believe there are any legal precedents for denying immigration based on religion. I believe that test is specifically unconstitutional.
This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a ban is constitutional.
You seem to be confusing immigration and refugees. They're different.
You also seem to be confusing a religious test and a country of origin test. To be clear, It would be perfectly constitutional for the president to decide not to take in any more Syrians (either via refugee status or immigration).
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is already settled existent law. It's already been upheld by the Supremes too. Under this law, Donald Trump is actually within the powers of the executive.
The law, already makes accepting refugees from nations such as Syria illegal. From the law itself;
Quote(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In generalAny alien who—
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.
Constitutionally, Congress most certainly can, create an act which deals with the issue of immigration.
Constitutionally Congress can enact any immigration law/policy, it wants. That is clearly one of the powers enumerated to the Congress Constitutionally.
In fact, Congressional act, and not Executive Order, IS the actual, correct, Constitutional way such an issue is supposed to be dealt with.
Quote from: Tacoma on December 07, 2015, 03:33:20 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-calls-complete-shutdown-muslims-entering-u-s-n475821
God I love this guy, no matter the outcome, we owe him a great debt of gratitude for slashing through the Marxist/Leninist PC penumbra of destruction enveloping the United States, I would very much like him to serve as Ted Cruz's Secretary of State in the event Cruz wins, and I will vote Trump against any Marxist/Leninist no matter what....
The same guy that said this in May?: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/595406508378173440
Quote from: taxed on December 08, 2015, 06:28:57 PM
The same guy that said this in May?: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/595406508378173440
This isn't May is it, its December, we just had 14 innocent Americans slaughtered by islamofascists not in the wilds of Syria, or Iraq, but San Bernadino California! You bet you're ass I love him, he has taken the PC culture and thrashed it effortlessly, you owe him a debt of gratitude if for no other reason then that, but there is even more, he has wrenched away the dialogue from the Grubering leftists who control the beloved rino party, and forced it to confront the real issues that real American's are dealing with, or fearing!
You owe this man a great debt of gratitude if for no other reasons! :thumbup:
Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 06:40:21 PM
This isn't May is it, its December, we just had 14 innocent Americans slaughtered by islamofascists not in the wilds of Syria, or Iraq, but San Bernadino California! You bet you're ass I love him, he has taken the PC culture and thrashed it effortlessly, you owe him a debt of gratitude if for no other reason then that, but there is even more, he has wrenched away the dialogue from the Grubering leftists who control the beloved rino party, and forced it to confront the real issues that real American's are dealing with, or fearing!
You owe this man a great debt of gratitude if for no other reasons! :thumbup:
14 Americans since May? My fault. I didn't know Muzzies attacking us was a recent concept over the past few months.
Quote from: taxed on December 08, 2015, 06:28:57 PM
The same guy that said this in May?: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/595406508378173440
WOW!
Only Trumpsters would let him get away with flip flopping like this.
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 06:52:23 PM
WOW!
Only Trumpsters would let him get away with flip flopping like this.
Trump takes a position for 5 minutes and the Trumpsters go nuts telling us how great he is. Too funny.
Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 06:40:21 PM
This isn't May is it, its December, we just had 14 innocent Americans slaughtered by islamofascists not in the wilds of Syria, or Iraq, but San Bernadino California! You bet you're ass I love him, he has taken the PC culture and thrashed it effortlessly, you owe him a debt of gratitude if for no other reason then that, but there is even more, he has wrenched away the dialogue from the Grubering leftists who control the beloved rino party, and forced it to confront the real issues that real American's are dealing with, or fearing!
You owe this man a great debt of gratitude if for no other reasons! :thumbup:
There's an old song, "Will You Love Me in December as You Did in May?". I guess the answer is "No."
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 04:41:04 PM
Federal law can not override constitutional law. The first amendment does not allow this sort of religious test.
The Constitutional ban on religious test ONLY applies to Federal office.
QuoteIf what you were saying were true, it would apply to other articles and amendments. So, for example, congress could ban guns under the commerce clause. Clearly, this is not the case.
Immigration is a power explicitly given to Congress. I has to do with a foreigners entering the United States. Someone attempting to enter the United States, has no right as a foreign national to call upon the Constitution to gain entry as it doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil.
QuoteIt was a straw man. Your argument is a rambling mess. Let me try to deconstruct it.
Because you can't - or won't - understand whats being said, or because you don't agree with what's being said doesn't make it a "rambling mess". No it isn't the leftist gibberish you're used too, but that doesn't make it wrong.
QuoteI don't believe there are any legal precedents for denying immigration based on religion. I believe that test is specifically unconstitutional.
There are legal precedents which say that Congress has the right to deny admission on any grounds it so pleases. There were no limitations placed on this right. Attempting to use the First Amendment is also a non starter as we are discussing entry into the US, and foreign nationals enjoy no Constitutional rights when they're in a foreign country. No foreign national has a "right" to enter the US.
QuoteThis is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a ban is constitutional.
ANY entry ban passed by Congress is Constitutional.
QuoteYou seem to be confusing immigration and refugees. They're different.
Indeed they are; but sense these refuges have already found safety in neighboring countries, and the cannot enjoy refugee status, the only classification left is immigrants. Besides as refugees the would not be settled in the US . This is simply an attempt by the Obama administration to go around Congress' prerogative to set immigration standards, as I noted the are not refugees and they are being settled. If the were refugees the would be sheltered in camps until the end of hostilities and then returned to their country of origin.
QuoteYou also seem to be confusing a religious test and a country of origin test.
Unless the plan is to appoint them to Federal office the religious test clause doesn't apply. You leftist should try reading the Constitution you're trying to destroy
QuoteTo be clear, It would be perfectly constitutional for the president to decide not to take in any more Syrians (either via refugee status or immigration).
Which part of immigration being the prerogative of Congress are you having trouble understanding? If they were truly refugees, by treaty, we could take some and provide camps for them. But they're not refugees. If you've been keeping up with the administrations story on why they aren't taking Middle Eastern Christians, you would know that Obama's bullshit excuse is that these actual refugees from Islamic terror have reached refuge in Kurdish held Syria. Meanwhile he ignores that to takes Syrian migrants from their refuge in Turkey. Try keeping up!
Quote from: taxed on December 08, 2015, 06:57:41 PM
Trump takes a position for 5 minutes and the Trumpsters go nuts telling us how great he is. Too funny.
Yep, and defend the Hell out of it.
By the way, our Dave called me and said he's trying to get his Senator to join, though I neglected to ask his name, but he said he's a solid Conservative.
I paid for another two years.
Quote from: taxed on December 08, 2015, 06:48:27 PM
14 Americans since May? My fault. I didn't know Muzzies attacking us was a recent concept over the past few months.
Good one, minimize the islamofascist murder of 14 Americans as rationalization for your distaste for Trump! The largest, most deadly islamofascist attack on America since 9/11 is as you no doubt have heard, a game changer, there will be many more where that one came from, perhaps you need run to Jeb or Marko for an act of love hug, and some more open borders Grubering.... :ttoung:
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 07:14:46 PM
Yep, and defend the Hell out of it.
By the way, our Dave called me and said he's trying to get his Senator to join, though I neglected to ask his name, but he said he's a solid Conservative.
I paid for another two years.
Ha, sweet! That guy is awesome...
Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 07:27:34 PM
Good one, minimize the islamofascist murder of 14 Americans as rationalization for your distaste for Trump! The largest, most deadly islamofascist attack on America since 9/11 is as you no doubt have heard, a game changer, there will be many more where that one came from, perhaps you need run to Jeb or Marko for an act of love hug, and some more open borders Grubering.... :ttoung:
Was that before May?
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 07:14:46 PM
Yep, and defend the Hell out of it.
By the way, our Dave called me and said he's trying to get his Senator to join, though I neglected to ask his name, but he said he's a solid Conservative.
I paid for another two years.
Trumps contributions and media savvy combined with the political inertia which gave rise to them, have directly resulted in the seizing of control away from the leftist establishment and its death grip upon the political dialogue and process, one hell of an accomplishment, almost divine intervention considering that he hasn't spent a dime of his own money in the doing thereof. Without Trump, the rino party would be shamelessly cheer leading for some Grubering D-Bag named Bush, or Kasich and how its an act of love to break into the country by the tens of millions, Cruz wouldn't be surging in Iowa and very likely would already be gone the way of Scott Walker, Trump changed everything, imperfect as he is, he is the best thing America has been served up since Reagan's 2nd term! :wink:
Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 07:44:57 PM
Trumps contributions and media savvy combined with the political inertia which gave rise to them, have directly resulted in the seizing of control away from the leftist establishment and its death grip upon the political dialogue and process, one hell of an accomplishment, almost divine intervention considering that he hasn't spent a dime of his own money in the doing thereof. Without Trump, the rino party would be shamelessly cheer leading for some Grubering D-Bag named Bush, or Kasich and how its an act of love to break into the country by the tens of millions, Cruz wouldn't be surging in Iowa and very likely would already be gone the way of Scott Walker, Trump changed everything, imperfect as he is, he is the best thing America has been served up since Reagan's 2nd term! :wink:
Link :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2015, 07:14:46 PM
Yep, and defend the Hell out of it.
By the way, our Dave called me and said he's trying to get his Senator to join, though I neglected to ask his name, but he said he's a solid Conservative.
I paid for another two years.
Sooooo I will not need to get in the unemployment line for two more years. :biggrin: :lol:
QuoteThe Constitutional ban on religious test ONLY applies to Federal office.
Wow. I really don't know what to say. The fact that you even considered that I was talking about that blows my mind. Did you google "religious test" in the constitution and come up with that?
I think it's clear I wasn't talking about article 6. In fact, I very clearly said the first amendment in the part you quoted and in numerous other responses. When I mention "religious test" it refers to the test Trump was proposing. I thought that was clear.
This is basic first amendment stuff.
Go look at Everson v. Board of Education. It lays out a few tests, one of which is:
- Neither a state nor the federal government government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions nor prefer one religion over another.
Clearly, a law, which when implemented results in "No Muslims" is preferring one religion over another.
Or move forward to Lemon v. Kurtzman - the so called "Lemon test", it'll fail the second part.
- Does the primary effect of the law or action neither advance nor inhibit religion? In other words, is it neutral?
Or move forward to Lynch v. Donnelly, it'll clearly fail the endorsement test.
There, three precedents that all support my view that the first amendment will apply.
Other than that bit, I think I've already addressed every one of your arguments, so please keep up.
Quote
Immigration is a power explicitly given to Congress. I has to do with a foreigners entering the United States.
Please see my 05:19:20 PM response and explain where my reasoning was wrong.
Quote
Someone attempting to enter the United States, has no right as a foreign national to call upon the Constitution to gain entry as it doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign soil.
Please see my 04:25:07 PM response to this and explain where my reasoning was wrong.
Quote
There are legal precedents which say that Congress has the right to deny admission on any grounds it so pleases. There were no limitations placed on this right.
Please cite one of these precedents. I'm happy to learn something new. Until you do, your argument is the equivalent of "nuht uh, I said so"
Again, see 05:19:20 PM response to understand the limitation.
Quote
Attempting to use the First Amendment is also a non starter as we are discussing entry into the US, and foreign nationals enjoy no Constitutional rights when they're in a foreign country. No foreign national has a "right" to enter the US.
Please see my 04:25:07 PM response to this and explain where my reasoning was wrong.
Quote
ANY entry ban passed by Congress is Constitutional.
Please see my 05:19:20 PM response and explain where my reasoning was wrong.
Quote
Which part of immigration being the prerogative of Congress are you having trouble understanding? If they were truly refugees, by treaty, we could take some and provide camps for them. But they're not refugees. If you've been keeping up with the administrations story on why they aren't taking Middle Eastern Christians, you would know that Obama's bullshit excuse is that these actual refugees from Islamic terror have reached refuge in Kurdish held Syria. Meanwhile he ignores that to takes Syrian migrants from their refuge in Turkey. Try keeping up!
All of which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's constitutional to restrict immigration based on religion, which is the only argument I'm making. I don't care if we deny all Syrians or not, that would be legal. I very much care about a presidential candidate proposing unconstitutional measures.
(all times EST, no idea if they'll be off hours for you)
Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 08:26:04 PM
Go back to your hole in the sand....
Provide a link... you've been called on it...
Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 08:26:04 PM
Go back to your hole in the sand....
LOL Don't press you luck!
Quoteconsidering that he hasn't spent a dime of his own money in the doing thereof.
So no link then your just fling poo and hope it will stick.
What Trump proposes is unconstitutional and sounds bigoted but he has a point. If the program doesn't work stop the program until the problems are fixed.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on December 08, 2015, 08:47:44 PM
What Trump proposes is unconstitutional and sounds bigoted but he has a point. If the program doesn't work stop the program until the problems are fixed.
Hmm...
Jimmy Carter Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions.
April 7, 1980
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233
We could do what the Democratic Socialist New Deal Theodore Roosevelt did. Internment camps as enemies of the state.
Then we could round up the not so miniscule Muslim populations that are already complaining that Obama asked them for help. People from the California Mosque that has been under the radar for Muslims that wanted to go and fight with ISIS. I don't know how Obama thinks that people will believe his baloney. Nothing miniscule about militant Islam. Entire ME, Africa, Asia, Europe, and right here in the USA. The miniscule part is the peaceful Muslims.
Quote from: mhughes on December 08, 2015, 08:17:57 PM
Please see my 05:19:20 PM response and explain where my reasoning was wrong.
Please see my 04:25:07 PM response to this and explain where my reasoning was wrong.
Again, see 05:19:20 PM response to understand the limitation
Please see my 04:25:07 PM response to this and explain where my reasoning was wrong.
Please see my 05:19:20 PM response and explain where my reasoning was wrong.
To make it easy I'll reply to all of your points at once since you keep making the same mistake. You're comparing apples and oranges. The First Amendment applies to the Federal Government, in relation to citizens or residents of the United States. Congress's prerogative to allow or disallow entry into the US applies to foreigners desiring to enter the country. The US is not required to allow entry to anyone desiring to overthrow the government of the United States. Islam by it's very nature demands the institution of Sharia Law and a theocratic state. A theocratic state would by itself be in violation of the First Amendment, because it would mean the an Established religion. Islam demands that no man made law be placed above the Koran, but in the US the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. How could any Muslim truthfully swear an Oath of Allegiance to the US.
Quote from: walkstall on December 08, 2015, 10:51:16 PM
Hmm...
Jimmy Carter Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions.
April 7, 1980
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233
Verrrry good investigating, Walks.
Carter proposed checking student-visas for
50,000 Iranians on November 10th, 1979. And a US Appeals Court upheld the legality of deportation-sanctions on December 27th, 1979.
http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=501915
Quote from: Chosen Daughter on December 08, 2015, 11:05:11 PM
We could do what the Democratic Socialist New Deal Theodore Roosevelt did. Internment camps as enemies of the state.
I don't think that will fly. We have "Due Process" in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments.
In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act, which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 to each individual camp survivor. The legislation admitted that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
Quote from: Tacoma on December 09, 2015, 09:35:19 AM
Do your own work... :popcorn:
You were asked to provide a link.
Do it, or take a timeout, fail to do so after a timeout, will be followed by a ban.
Your choice.
Quote from: mrclose on December 09, 2015, 02:45:39 PM
I think that Tacoma is/was being misled, as a lot of folks are?
Let me be upfront about Trump?
I am a Cruz man all the way 'but' if Trump were to win the nomination .. I would vote for him and not lose a nights sleep over doing so.
The alternative would be much worse.
(I think) :confused:
http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news1239_trump.html
All I ask for was a link to back up his statement, that he was not willing to do
again. We don't need other being misled by him fling poo and hope it will stick. That is what Romper Room Trolls do.
QuoteTRUMP HASN'T SPENT ONE DIME ON HIS CAMPAIGN
Trump boasts about financing his own Presidential election campaign with his own money and that he "can't be bought" like the other candidates who are indebted to their "special interest group" donors like the Jewish lobby.
Trump makes deals, has big bankster friends, political friends, expert accountants and lawyers in his pocket...and he has offshore accounts.
Yes. The paper trail shows that Trump is legally financing his own campaign with his own money...but every traceable $million that he puts into his own campaign can be reimbursed anonymously by "special interest group" donors in untraceable offshore accounts in the Caymen Islands, Lichtenstein, Brazil, Switzerland etcetera.
TRUMP HASN'T SPENT ONE DIME ON HIS CAMPAIGN
Is there any doubt whatsoever that Trump knows where and how to hide money, evade taxes and get reimbursed for his campaign spending by "special interest group" donors who he would be beholding to?
Trump is bragging that he "can't be bought" and he can prove that he is using his own money for his campaign. So where is the proof that Trump "is bought and paid for like the rest of the candidates" at the Pinocchio Conventions called "debates"?
There isn't any proof. Why? Because we don't know where Trump's anonymous offshore accounts are or who his anonymous donors are. There's no paper trail. His big bankster buddies, his expert accountants, his legal team and his anonymous and powerful "special interest group" donors have made sure of that.
http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news1239_trump.html
This isn't a news article it is a bunch of conjecture and crap! He hasn't spent much of his own money because he hasn't had to! How many ad buys has he done? The media has given him a free ride every time he opens his mouth! Even this latest coordinated attack from the RINO's in the party is starting to backfire on them. Again Trump was right and owns this very important issue thanks to Jeb and all his buddies!
All Trumps enemies in the Republican party just can't help themselves. If they just left this alone Trump would have been left with nothing, starved for attention! Now the blow back is starting to come and it is starting to look like the voting base in our party supports what he said. The only ones hurting the "Republican Brand" are the Rino's out running their mouths attacking Trump violating Ronnie's 11th commandment.
Thank god Cruz has more sense then to join the pile on! He will come out as the adult in the room!
[
Quoteb]Shocking List: 11 Public Figures Who Agree With Trump's Muslim Ban Plan[/b]
1. President Jimmy Carter — In 1980, during the Iran hostage crisis, The Washington Post reported that Carter announced "he was canceling all visas issued to Iranians for entry into the United States and warned that they would be revalidated only for 'compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest requires.'" That meant that religion was considered in the processing of visas, and preference was given to persecuted religious minorities in the Muslim-dominated region. Last month, President Barack Obama slammed those who he accused of proposing a "religious test" for Syrian refugee resettlement in the U.S., but it appears Carter had such a religious test for Iranians who sought to enter into America.
2. The Supreme Court — The court's ruling in the 1972 case Kleindienst v. Mandel "strongly suggests the Trump proposal would pass muster," wrote The Wall Street Journal this week. While many argue that the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment would be violated by any barring of Muslims from entering the U.S., "the government's authority to set immigration policy, at least as applied to nonresident aliens, outweighs any free-speech claim an alien may wish to assert," The Journal wrote.
3. Congress — The Wall Street Journal reported that Congress long ago enacted legislation that gives the president at least some of the powers Trump would need to enact his plan. Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code says in part, "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
4. Ann Coulter — According to The Atlantic, Coulter suggested in January, after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, that "maybe you take a little pause in Muslim immigration for a while." After Trump announced his own Muslim immigration proposal, Coulter cheered on Twitter, calling it, "my best birthday gift."
More @
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/trump-muslim-ban-public-figure/2015/12/09/id/705136/#ixzz3trvmyINP
Read the rest at the link! Looks like the RINO's in their zeal to nail Trump screwed up with the base yet again!
Quote from: redbeard on December 09, 2015, 03:24:38 PM
This isn't a news article it is a bunch of conjecture and crap! He hasn't spent much of his own money because he hasn't had to! How many ad buys has he done? The media has given him a free ride every time he opens his mouth! Even this latest coordinated attack from the RINO's in the party is starting to backfire on them. Again Trump was right and owns this very important issue thanks to Jeb and all his buddies!
All Trumps enemies in the Republican party just can't help themselves. If they just left this alone Trump would have been left with nothing, starved for attention! Now the blow back is starting to come and it is starting to look like the voting base in our party supports what he said. The only ones hurting the "Republican Brand" are the Rino's out running their mouths attacking Trump violating Ronnie's 11th commandment.
Thank god Cruz has more sense then to join the pile on! He will come out as the adult in the room!
[Read the rest at the link! Looks like the RINO's in their zeal to nail Trump screwed up with the base yet again!
They can't tell me he is flying coach around the U.S. and staying in cheap hotels along with eating on it fly. :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on December 09, 2015, 03:14:36 PM
All I ask for was a link to back up his statement, that he was not willing to do again. We don't need other being misled by him fling poo and hope it will stick. That is what Romper Room Trolls do.
Prediction.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgbqrbwqktfqffkxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Ftdfqwdfgwxgwswrtqfw%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fcliffiegetrightback300x190-vi.png&hash=07bcb6110c0486e80f5ba3f8b5fb9ffd699e5b17)
Quote from: Dori on December 09, 2015, 09:26:48 AM
I don't think that will fly. We have "Due Process" in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments.
In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act, which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 to each individual camp survivor. The legislation admitted that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
I was being sarcastic but also drawing a line between Trump and Roosevelt. I really can't understand how people can take him seriously. You could compare him to Obama and Hitler too. Warning! Not Tea Party, and not American. I hate Islam with a passion. I think it would be within the law to infiltrate every Mosque in America and shut down every single one that doesn't preach American values of human compassion and value of human life. Some of the Mosques have already been on FBI radar. Shut them down. If they don't preach peaceful messages of religious tolerance bar the door and never open it again.
Jesus is Love, peace, Mercy and Grace.
Quote from: Chosen Daughter on December 09, 2015, 06:01:41 PM
I was being sarcastic but also drawing a line between Trump and Roosevelt. I really can't understand how people can take him seriously. You could compare him to Obama and Hitler too. Warning! Not Tea Party, and not American. I hate Islam with a passion. I think it would be within the law to infiltrate every Mosque in America and shut down every single one that doesn't preach American values of human compassion and value of human life. Some of the Mosques have already been on FBI radar. Shut them down. If they don't preach peaceful messages of religious tolerance bar the door and never open it again.
Jesus is Love, peace, Mercy and Grace.
Uh, they don't believe in Jesus, so obviously they won't be teaching Jesus's values in the first place.
Second, I don't want our government dictating what can or cannot be preached in their mosques, anymore than I want our government telling us what we can or can't say in a church.
That doesn't mean no, we can't surveil them if there's probable cause to think they're in there plotting mass murders.
No that doesn't mean we can't use things like RICO laws to go after criminal conspiracies that may or may not be going on in these mosques.
Anymore than it means we can't do that because it's a church.
That's a far cry the government,saying, "hey you'll preach what we think you should be preaching" or "you'll preach what we like and agree with", or else".
I don't care who the group is, I don't want government presuming to take upon itself the power to dictate what acceptable religious belief is.
That's a seriously slippery slope we're on folks, even suggesting that.
Quote from: Tacoma on December 08, 2015, 07:44:57 PM
Trumps contributions and media savvy combined with the political inertia which gave rise to them, have directly resulted in the seizing of control away from the leftist establishment and its death grip upon the political dialogue and process, one hell of an accomplishment, almost divine intervention considering that he hasn't spent a dime of his own money in the doing thereof. Without Trump, the rino party would be shamelessly cheer leading for some Grubering D-Bag named Bush, or Kasich and how its an act of love to break into the country by the tens of millions, Cruz wouldn't be surging in Iowa and very likely would already be gone the way of Scott Walker, Trump changed everything, imperfect as he is, he is the best thing America has been served up since Reagan's 2nd term! :wink:
A basic search shows why you refused to back up your bullshit.
And to think, a simple "I made a mistake" could have saved you tons of embarrassment as well as self Coventry..
From Oct.
So far it has spent a total of $5,449,750. The campaign is spending money as quickly as it receives it, and the campaign reports having had $254,772 on hand as of Sept. 30.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/15/donald-trump-received-nearly-4-million-in-unsolicited-campaign-donations/
Quote from: Solar on December 09, 2015, 07:27:46 PM
A basic search shows why you refused to back up your bullshit.
And to think, a simple "I made a mistake" could have saved you tons of embarrassment as well as self Coventry..
From Oct.
So far it has spent a total of $5,449,750. The campaign is spending money as quickly as it receives it, and the campaign reports having had $254,772 on hand as of Sept. 30.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/15/donald-trump-received-nearly-4-million-in-unsolicited-campaign-donations/
I think he likes it, just like old Sioux...
Quote from: daidalos on December 09, 2015, 06:26:39 PM
Uh, they don't believe in Jesus, so obviously they won't be teaching Jesus's values in the first place.
Second, I don't want our government dictating what can or cannot be preached in their mosques, anymore than I want our government telling us what we can or can't say in a church.
That doesn't mean no, we can't surveil them if there's probable cause to think they're in there plotting mass murders.
No that doesn't mean we can't use things like RICO laws to go after criminal conspiracies that may or may not be going on in these mosques.
Anymore than it means we can't do that because it's a church.
That's a far cry the government,saying, "hey you'll preach what we think you should be preaching" or "you'll preach what we like and agree with", or else".
I don't care who the group is, I don't want government presuming to take upon itself the power to dictate what acceptable religious belief is.
That's a seriously slippery slope we're on folks, even suggesting that.
Sorry but I disagree with you. Islam is a governing system. It isn't a church. Blame my thought pattern on Obama who has been falsely assuring us that Islam is peaceful. It isn't and it is bent on the destruction of this country and Israel. That is a line between religion and death to America cult. Shouldn't be allowed to exist. We provide freedom and liberty and it isn't free. We fight hard to protect our way of life and we don't need an enemy within destroying what our sons and daughters, mothers, fathers, grandparents fought for.
In other very harsh reality words. We don't want United States of Sharia Law.
Quote from: Chosen Daughter on December 09, 2015, 09:08:44 PM
Sorry but I disagree with you. Islam is a governing system. It isn't a church. Blame my thought pattern on Obama who has been falsely assuring us that Islam is peaceful. It isn't and it is bent on the destruction of this country and Israel. That is a line between religion and death to America cult. Shouldn't be allowed to exist. We provide freedom and liberty and it isn't free. We fight hard to protect our way of life and we don't need an enemy within destroying what our sons and daughters, mothers, fathers, grandparents fought for.
In other very harsh reality words. We don't want United States of Sharia Law.
No, Islam is a religion, under the context of our definition of religion. It wouldn't fly, personally, I'm not so sure it should. Understand something, I have an intense dislike of all things Islam, I know directly how they wage war and currently they are at war with the US and intend to destroy use. But disbanning places of worship is a dangerous precedent.
I do agree with a policy of surveillance and
infiltration to determine who is planning what, BUT REMEMBER, under our Constitution LAW ENFORCEMENT needs the requirement of PROBABLE CAUSE for such investigative actions. As a former LEO I know how easy this can be done BUT LE needs the support of US Attorney's, States Attorneys and the CJ system THEY DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW NOR WILL THEY UNDER ANY DEMOCRAT REGIME.
Recall that the surviellances and investigation of many Mosques and "Islamic centers" was halted by the USAO and in some cases by city officials like NY Mayor De Blasio.
Quote from: taxed on December 09, 2015, 08:52:54 PM
I think he likes it, just like old Sioux...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Suzy was too stupid to know he just got his nose broken by a meteoric face plant.
That guy was epic...
Quote from: Solar on December 10, 2015, 06:00:14 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Suzy was too stupid to know he just got his nose broken by a meteoric face plant.
That guy was epic...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Old Trapper is not dead yet.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi12.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa238%2FDapper_Dan%2Fbth_42.gif&hash=4edc57c38b96d2140925d0281402379c38f5b7e0)
Quote from: Chosen Daughter on December 09, 2015, 09:08:44 PM
Sorry but I disagree with you. Islam is a governing system. It isn't a church. Blame my thought pattern on Obama who has been falsely assuring us that Islam is peaceful. It isn't and it is bent on the destruction of this country and Israel. That is a line between religion and death to America cult. Shouldn't be allowed to exist. We provide freedom and liberty and it isn't free. We fight hard to protect our way of life and we don't need an enemy within destroying what our sons and daughters, mothers, fathers, grandparents fought for.
In other very harsh reality words. We don't want United States of Sharia Law.
Also, I believe that it is not legal to publically advocate for the violent overthrow of the US Government. That is not protected speech under the First Amendment. I think that the other exception would be the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I can't give you a source for this, it's just general knowledge I have but I think I am correct. I agree with you about Islam. It is not a religion, but a political system and should be designated as such. Just like communism and socialism.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on December 10, 2015, 08:08:43 AM
Also, I believe that it is not legal to publically advocate for the violent overthrow of the US Government. That is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
I'd be interested in learning more about that if anybody knows more info.
I know it's a felony to threaten to kill the president.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on December 10, 2015, 08:08:43 AM
Also, I believe that it is not legal to publically advocate for the violent overthrow of the US Government. That is not protected speech under the First Amendment. I think that the other exception would be the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I can't give you a source for this, it's just general knowledge I have but I think I am correct. I agree with you about Islam. It is not a religion, but a political system and should be designated as such. Just like communism and socialism.
A quick Bing search hit upon the result of your question..
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385)
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
That is what I am saying, there is already law that exists that allows the Potus to stop immigration from a nation.
Based on the fact that there is a group there waging war on the U.S.
Protecting due process for citizen's though, is not a waste of time, effort, or money.
That protects us all from the abuses of government.
And yes, all citizen's need that protection. As the latest attempt at grabbing Citizen's rights and stripping them away from the citizen shows. Government is always trying to deprive the citizen of their rights, to increase it's own power.
Quote from: AmericanMom on December 10, 2015, 08:21:29 AM
A quick Bing search hit upon the result of your question..
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385)
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
Now ponder those charges for a moment, and think back to a time when the Marxists stated he will "Fundamentally Change America".
Charge his commie ass with treason and be done with it.
Quote from: Solar on December 10, 2015, 09:50:26 AM
Now ponder those charges for a moment, and think back to a time when the Marxists stated he will "Fundamentally Change America".
Charge his commie ass with treason and be done with it.
LOL, while reading through it before posting it my thoughts were the same, This President is one of the biggest offenders
Also, didn't Al Quaeda state that to change America it would have to come from within the Government? Wasn't this right before this Muslim loving idiot was elected, who has he put in power around him, where do his sympathies lie? Is it Americans he protects or is it the Muslims? If the above link it true what recourse do we as Americans have other then wait him out and hope for better?