Muslim Ban - Proper or Not ?

[yiostheoy]

Liberals have made it a consistent practice to align themselves with minority groups of all sorts. In so doing, they add on voting blocs to empower themselves politically.

What we as conservatives should do is be aware of everything we must do to defend ourselves from harm. If this includes entire ethnic groups, then we should denounce those groups as harmful, and cite specifically how this is the case.

During World War II, we would not have allowed Japanese or Germans to immigrate to America. Likewise, we now must at least define and determine whatever is a danger to us, and if that includes an ethnic group, then so be it. Out top priority is national security, and the protection of the American people is out govt's # 1 responsibility, not extending welcomes to anyone from anywhere, however threatening they may be.

Although many people who describe themselves as Muslims are truly loyal Americans, it cannot be denied that the doctrine (the Koran) that Islam is defined by is supremacist (and thus unconstitutional), seditious Ian thus illegal), and contains scores of violations of US laws, including many advocating (if not commanding) Muslims to kill all of us who are not Muslims.

Thus, it is conclusive that by allowing Islam to exist in our country, and to allow Muslims to immigrate here is nothing less than self-destruction, and a dereliction of duty of government to protect its people. This has already been shown to be the case with a list of terrorist attacks from the 1993 World Trade Center, to attacks occuring here in 2017.

In their zeal to accumulate votes, liberals cast aside even the all-important matter of national security. Religion is the weapon liberals use, and it's notation in the Constitution's 1st amendment, as in the recent attack on President Trump's immigration/travel ban, by liberal, west coast judges. Those judgements however, were the obvious case of judicial activism, with reckless disregard for public safety. Not one did these rogue judges even mention the 1952 law that gives the POTUS complete jurisdiction over matters of immigration.

And if these phony judges really were so concerned about religion or the Constitution, they could/should/would have referred to Article 6, Section 2, part 1, the Supremacy Clause, which declares Islam, with its supremacist Islamic law, illegal in America. This would be grounds for not only the exclusion of Muslim immigration, it would be grounds for the abolition of Islam in America, entirely. No mosques, no Korans, no footwashing basins, etc, etc.

As for the liberals' religious angle, the Constitution's 1st amendment (loaded with exceptions) cannot trump the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (which has never had a single exception in 225 years). The fact is, nothing can trump the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, including religion (if Islam is even to be defined as a religion - which some nations do not recognize it to be one - Ex. Italy).

Bad comparison unfortunately.

Since 9-11 only one Muslim female has penetrated the US and with her US-born hubby gunned down a company employee luncheon in San Bernardino Calif.

The rest of the moosleem extremists who have struck so far have been home grown here -- apparently the lure of 72 virgins in the moosleem afterlife (with Satan) was irresistible mind candy to them.

Most commentators including the Federal judges involved in the case have concluded that DJT's ban is inappropriate as currently structured.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Allah Is All About Oil

Jihadist OPEC has trillions of dollars with which to bribe our politicians and pundits.

But they sometime FAIL. Example >> Hillary Clinton.

Pre-Owned Candidates in This Anti-Democratic Form of Government

Financed by Sunni Saudi Arabia, Hillaxena wanted us to overthrow the Shiite Assad. Campaign finance plays the odds, winning more than losing.

 

[miketx]

Of course a religious ban is wrong.

And the USSC provides penalties for those like you who try to infringe on others civil liberties.

What religious ban?

 

[The Original Tree]

If you can find a Muslim Ban, maybe we can discuss a Muslim Ban. But there is no Muslim Ban if 46 Muslim Nations are not part of the Travel Restriction Order.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Liberals have made it a consistent practice to align themselves with minority groups of all sorts. In so doing, they add on voting blocs to empower themselves politically.

What we as conservatives should do is be aware of everything we must do to defend ourselves from harm. If this includes entire ethnic groups, then we should denounce those groups as harmful, and cite specifically how this is the case.

During World War II, we would not have allowed Japanese or Germans to immigrate to America. Likewise, we now must at least define and determine whatever is a danger to us, and if that includes an ethnic group, then so be it. Out top priority is national security, and the protection of the American people is out govt's # 1 responsibility, not extending welcomes to anyone from anywhere, however threatening they may be.

Although many people who describe themselves as Muslims are truly loyal Americans, it cannot be denied that the doctrine (the Koran) that Islam is defined by is supremacist (and thus unconstitutional), seditious Ian thus illegal), and contains scores of violations of US laws, including many advocating (if not commanding) Muslims to kill all of us who are not Muslims.

Thus, it is conclusive that by allowing Islam to exist in our country, and to allow Muslims to immigrate here is nothing less than self-destruction, and a dereliction of duty of government to protect its people. This has already been shown to be the case with a list of terrorist attacks from the 1993 World Trade Center, to attacks occuring here in 2017.

In their zeal to accumulate votes, liberals cast aside even the all-important matter of national security. Religion is the weapon liberals use, and it's notation in the Constitution's 1st amendment, as in the recent attack on President Trump's immigration/travel ban, by liberal, west coast judges. Those judgements however, were the obvious case of judicial activism, with reckless disregard for public safety. Not one did these rogue judges even mention the 1952 law that gives the POTUS complete jurisdiction over matters of immigration.

And if these phony judges really were so concerned about religion or the Constitution, they could/should/would have referred to Article 6, Section 2, part 1, the Supremacy Clause, which declares Islam, with its supremacist Islamic law, illegal in America. This would be grounds for not only the exclusion of Muslim immigration, it would be grounds for the abolition of Islam in America, entirely. No mosques, no Korans, no footwashing basins, etc, etc.

As for the liberals' religious angle, the Constitution's 1st amendment (loaded with exceptions) cannot trump the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (which has never had a single exception in 225 years). The fact is, nothing can trump the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, including religion (if Islam is even to be defined as a religion - which some nations do not recognize it to be one - Ex. Italy).

Bad comparison unfortunately.

Since 9-11 only one Muslim female has penetrated the US and with her US-born hubby gunned down a company employee luncheon in San Bernardino Calif.

The rest of the moosleem extremists who have struck so far have been home grown here -- apparently the lure of 72 virgins in the moosleem afterlife (with Satan) was irresistible mind candy to them.
.

Echoes of a Prehistoric Horror

Then it's racial rather than social engineering by an Islamic ruling class. We're not allowed to bring up race in reference to these Neanderthal hybrids, because our rulers believe they inherited superior genes and have evolved into a superior race that has the right to tell other Whites what to think.

The decadent Death Wish that motivates the Nobel Prize awards went to William Golding, who wrote Lord of the Flies to show his postmodern contempt for civilization. He also wrote The Inheritors, to show his sick admiration for and biased presentation of the Neanderthal predatory beasts.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If you can find a Muslim Ban, maybe we can discuss a Muslim Ban. But there is no Muslim Ban if 46 Muslim Nations are not part of the Travel Restriction Order.

Majoritarian Nullification

Well, there should be a Muslim ban on immigration, and also deportation of all the others. The traitors who preach that the Constitution supersedes the will of the majority should not be allowed to have their way.

 

[Moonglow]

we cannot have a RELIGION BAN-----we can have a ban on any ideology
that advocates the over throw of the USA government or that disputes
the constitution of the USA-------OR any persons who remain loyal to a
foreign power in conflict with the USA. Government led chanting ----
DEATH TO AMERICA seems enough to me to ban Iranians---that are
not FLEEING that shariah shit hole for IDEOLOGICAL reaons

We have a ban on Christians once a year! They are not allowed to put a cross or a Christmas tree in a public space because it irrepreally harms a libtard! Jeez, the hypocrisy is stunning!

Thank God!

 

[Moonglow]

If you can find a Muslim Ban, maybe we can discuss a Muslim Ban. But there is no Muslim Ban if 46 Muslim Nations are not part of the Travel Restriction Order.

Islam is a religion, Muslim is a human that practices Islam..

 

[irosie91]

If you can find a Muslim Ban, maybe we can discuss a Muslim Ban. But there is no Muslim Ban if 46 Muslim Nations are not part of the Travel Restriction Order.

Islam is a religion, Muslim is a human that practices Islam..

true------islam is in broad terms an IDEOLOGY------Communism is, in broad terms,
an IDEOLOGY Nazism is, in broad terms. an IDEOLOGY -----these ideologies are have been under suspicion for some time in the USA

 

[Claudette]

Liberals have made it a consistent practice to align themselves with minority groups of all sorts. In so doing, they add on voting blocs to empower themselves politically.

What we as conservatives should do is be aware of everything we must do to defend ourselves from harm. If this includes entire ethnic groups, then we should denounce those groups as harmful, and cite specifically how this is the case.

During World War II, we would not have allowed Japanese or Germans to immigrate to America. Likewise, we now must at least define and determine whatever is a danger to us, and if that includes an ethnic group, then so be it. Out top priority is national security, and the protection of the American people is out govt's # 1 responsibility, not extending welcomes to anyone from anywhere, however threatening they may be.

Although many people who describe themselves as Muslims are truly loyal Americans, it cannot be denied that the doctrine (the Koran) that Islam is defined by is supremacist (and thus unconstitutional), seditious Ian thus illegal), and contains scores of violations of US laws, including many advocating (if not commanding) Muslims to kill all of us who are not Muslims.

Thus, it is conclusive that by allowing Islam to exist in our country, and to allow Muslims to immigrate here is nothing less than self-destruction, and a dereliction of duty of government to protect its people. This has already been shown to be the case with a list of terrorist attacks from the 1993 World Trade Center, to attacks occuring here in 2017.

In their zeal to accumulate votes, liberals cast aside even the all-important matter of national security. Religion is the weapon liberals use, and it's notation in the Constitution's 1st amendment, as in the recent attack on President Trump's immigration/travel ban, by liberal, west coast judges. Those judgements however, were the obvious case of judicial activism, with reckless disregard for public safety. Not one did these rogue judges even mention the 1952 law that gives the POTUS complete jurisdiction over matters of immigration.

And if these phony judges really were so concerned about religion or the Constitution, they could/should/would have referred to Article 6, Section 2, part 1, the Supremacy Clause, which declares Islam, with its supremacist Islamic law, illegal in America. This would be grounds for not only the exclusion of Muslim immigration, it would be grounds for the abolition of Islam in America, entirely. No mosques, no Korans, no footwashing basins, etc, etc.

As for the liberals' religious angle, the Constitution's 1st amendment (loaded with exceptions) cannot trump the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (which has never had a single exception in 225 years). The fact is, nothing can trump the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, including religion (if Islam is even to be defined as a religion - which some nations do not recognize it to be one - Ex. Italy).

You bet you're ass its right.

Just take a look at the dead in Paris, Nice and other parts of Europe. Look at the dead in San Bernardino. Look at the rapes.

They should kick every Muslim out of every country in the West. Kick em back to the shithole ME.

 

[Claudette]

If you can find a Muslim Ban, maybe we can discuss a Muslim Ban. But there is no Muslim Ban if 46 Muslim Nations are not part of the Travel Restriction Order.

Islam is a religion, Muslim is a human that practices Islam..

true------islam is in broad terms an IDEOLOGY------Communism is, in broad terms,
an IDEOLOGY Nazism is, in broad terms. an IDEOLOGY -----these ideologies are have been under suspicion for some time in the USA

Islam is a death cult. Period.

 

[protectionist]

Bad comparison unfortunately.

Since 9-11 only one Muslim female has penetrated the US and with her US-born hubby gunned down a company employee luncheon in San Bernardino Calif.

The rest of the moosleem extremists who have struck so far have been home grown here -- apparently the lure of 72 virgins in the moosleem afterlife (with Satan) was irresistible mind candy to them.

Most commentators including the Federal judges involved in the case have concluded that DJT's ban is inappropriate as currently structured.

Where have you been getting your information ? MSNBC ? CNN ? PBS ? Well, the fact, is you are totally WRONG, and by a wide margin. Actually dozens of Muslim terrorists attacking in the US have been from Muslim countries, including all this from both World Trade Center attacks (1993 and 9/11), Ahmed Mohamed Hadayet (the LAX shooter was from Egypt), and many more.

72 individuals from the seven 'mostly Muslim countries' covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism since 9/11.

Did The Judges Lie: New Report Finds 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered By Trump Ban | Zero Hedge

Seattle Judge Was Ignorant About Jihad Convictions Prior to Imposing Refugee Reform Ban - Breitbart

Fact check: No arrests from 7 nations in travel ban? Judge in Seattle was wrong

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia

 

[protectionist]

Islam is a religion, Muslim is a human that practices Islam..

Most people around the world disagree with you; as do some nations (Ex. Italy)

 

[Moonglow]

Islam is a religion, Muslim is a human that practices Islam..

Most people around the world disagree with you; as do some nations (Ex. Italy)

I wouldn't doubt that, i've been married three times...

 

[RodISHI]

Europe has its own nasty gang rappers with their new Muslims.

Gangster Islam: The problem Europe ignores

 

[Clementine]

Of course a religious ban is wrong.

And the USSC provides penalties for those like you who try to infringe on others civil liberties.

Islam is a government masquerading as a religion. Sharia law goes directly against our constitution and no 'religion' is above the law.

We can ban other forms of government since the sharia law seeks to overthrow ours.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah but it's not a Muslem ban. It's a ban on immigration from countries that even the former president called a danger to America's security. It's strange that hypocrite lefties would put the owners of a bakery in jail for refusing to build a wedding cake for sodomites but they would fall all over themselves supporting regimes that execute sodomites and stone women to death.

The hypocrite Alt Right ignores that these seven countries have very little numbers for producing terrorists here, while the ban is not on those that do, such as SA.

Carter banned by country: nothing illegal with that.

But religions cannot be the basis of a ban.

Nananana hey hey hey good bye


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nananana hey hey hey good bye.

Yep, can't ban based on religion, just as you always have been told.

 

[RodISHI]

Nananana hey hey hey good bye.

Yep, can't ban based on religion, just as you always have been told.

We can call an ideology exactly that when it is not truly a religion. You are free to be a queer but that doesn't make your belief system an actual religion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nananana hey hey hey good bye.

Yep, can't ban based on religion, just as you always have been told.

We can call an ideology exactly that when it is not truly a religion. You are free to be a queer but that doesn't make your belief system an actual religion.

Islam is recognized as a religion, and there is not a thing you can do about it.