Muslim Ban - Proper or Not ?

protectionist

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2013
56,092
17,914
2,250
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).
 
Of course a religious ban is wrong.

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

We already did presidential power shit around 1972
 
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
 
Of course a religious ban is wrong.

And the USSC provides penalties for those like you who try to infringe on others civil liberties.
How can you call a death cult of supremacy politics and control a religion without including every other totalitarian cult belief including atheism, socialism, nazism, marxism and communism a religion?
 
If the need arises, who gives a shit if its proper?
Its about whats best for America and her citizens.
Fuck the bullshit.
 
Of course a religious ban is wrong.

And the USSC provides penalties for those like you who try to infringe on others civil liberties.
How can you call a death cult of supremacy politics and control a religion without including every other totalitarian cult belief including atheism, socialism, nazism, marxism and communism a religion?

there is a LINE somewhere-( "god" knows where)-----which when crossed ---
transforms ANY IDEOLOGY into the realm of "religion" I have known people
who are religious on ----NUTRITIONAL ISSUES
 
If the need arises, who gives a shit if its proper?
Its about whats best for America and her citizens.
Fuck the bullshit.
Too many politicians supposedly can't do that because they desire to stay into this legalistic crap of confusion with which they justify themselves. They may have to give up their gifts/bribes.
 
Of course a religious ban is wrong.

And the USSC provides penalties for those like you who try to infringe on others civil liberties.
How can you call a death cult of supremacy politics and control a religion without including every other totalitarian cult belief including atheism, socialism, nazism, marxism and communism a religion?

there is a LINE somewhere-( "god" knows where)-----which when crossed ---
transforms ANY IDEOLOGY into the realm of "religion" I have known people
who are religious on ----NUTRITIONAL ISSUES
Sure and I know Jewish people that eat bacon because they love it. They understand that it is not the physical food that turns into ultimately shit after it goes through the gut system that sustains their relationship with God.
 
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!
 
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!

where is that?
 
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!

where is that?
That would be wherever the ACLU political religious cult has left there feces as their brand. Its similar to what male dogs do when the urinate on everything in sight.
 
Of course a religious ban is wrong.

And the USSC provides penalties for those like you who try to infringe on others civil liberties.
How can you call a death cult of supremacy politics and control a religion without including every other totalitarian cult belief including atheism, socialism, nazism, marxism and communism a religion?

there is a LINE somewhere-( "god" knows where)-----which when crossed ---
transforms ANY IDEOLOGY into the realm of "religion" I have known people
who are religious on ----NUTRITIONAL ISSUES
Sure and I know Jewish people that eat bacon because they love it. They understand that it is not the physical food that turns into ultimately shit after it goes through the gut system that sustains their relationship with God.

bad analogy. Dietary restrictions on the basis of religious ideology do not
constitute A RELIGION anymore than do any other religious customs or
rituals. Nutrition religionists refer to persons who INSIST on FOOD as
basis for the curing of all physical ills and societal ills
 
Of course a religious ban is wrong.

And the USSC provides penalties for those like you who try to infringe on others civil liberties.
How can you call a death cult of supremacy politics and control a religion without including every other totalitarian cult belief including atheism, socialism, nazism, marxism and communism a religion?

there is a LINE somewhere-( "god" knows where)-----which when crossed ---
transforms ANY IDEOLOGY into the realm of "religion" I have known people
who are religious on ----NUTRITIONAL ISSUES
Sure and I know Jewish people that eat bacon because they love it. They understand that it is not the physical food that turns into ultimately shit after it goes through the gut system that sustains their relationship with God.

bad analogy. Dietary restrictions on the basis of religious ideology do not
constitute A RELIGION anymore than do any other religious customs or
rituals. Nutrition religionists refer to persons who INSIST on FOOD as
basis for the curing of all physical ills and societal ills
There ya go. They are just another political religious cult too.
 
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!

where is that?
That would be wherever the ACLU political religious cult has left there feces as their brand. Its similar to what male dogs do when the urinate on everything in sight.


I am very suspicious of ANY PERSON who receives literature from the ACLU-----ie is a CARD CARRYING member------they all seem to be nuts (sorry---no link--
MY INTUITION
 
Of course a religious ban is wrong.

And the USSC provides penalties for those like you who try to infringe on others civil liberties.
How can you call a death cult of supremacy politics and control a religion without including every other totalitarian cult belief including atheism, socialism, nazism, marxism and communism a religion?

there is a LINE somewhere-( "god" knows where)-----which when crossed ---
transforms ANY IDEOLOGY into the realm of "religion" I have known people
who are religious on ----NUTRITIONAL ISSUES
Sure and I know Jewish people that eat bacon because they love it. They understand that it is not the physical food that turns into ultimately shit after it goes through the gut system that sustains their relationship with God.

bad analogy. Dietary restrictions on the basis of religious ideology do not
constitute A RELIGION anymore than do any other religious customs or
rituals. Nutrition religionists refer to persons who INSIST on FOOD as
basis for the curing of all physical ills and societal ills
There ya go. They are just another political religious cult too.

remember when VITAMIN C became a RELIGION?
 
How can you call a death cult of supremacy politics and control a religion without including every other totalitarian cult belief including atheism, socialism, nazism, marxism and communism a religion?

there is a LINE somewhere-( "god" knows where)-----which when crossed ---
transforms ANY IDEOLOGY into the realm of "religion" I have known people
who are religious on ----NUTRITIONAL ISSUES
Sure and I know Jewish people that eat bacon because they love it. They understand that it is not the physical food that turns into ultimately shit after it goes through the gut system that sustains their relationship with God.

bad analogy. Dietary restrictions on the basis of religious ideology do not
constitute A RELIGION anymore than do any other religious customs or
rituals. Nutrition religionists refer to persons who INSIST on FOOD as
basis for the curing of all physical ills and societal ills
There ya go. They are just another political religious cult too.

remember when VITAMIN C became a RELIGION?
No but thinking about the pork thingy reminded me of a study on what uncured pork does to the blood compared to beef, and lamb. I'm trying to recall who did those studies. Considering the C' issue the 'no sunshine' or 'sunshine is bad' for you cult needs upgraded to. If one is getting enough C' (the real stuff not the fake shit) in their diets the sunshine turns the C' into D' and cells regenerate better.
 
Of course a religious ban is wrong.

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

NOTHING is excluded from being banned, if it is a harm to the American people, and if it claims supremacy. Problem with Islam is, it does just that.

As for religion, as stated in the OP, it is not necessarily/universally accepted that Islam is one. The government should take action, as Italy has done and declare Islam not a religion. But even if it continued to be defined as one, it still cannot trump the Constitution (Supremacy Clause)

PS - proclaiming supremacy (other than the Constitution - Article 6, Section 2, part 2 - is not a "civil liberty"
 
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.
Just right wing fantasy.

Convince Congress to justify real times of national security Tax Rates;

then,

we can discuss Any right wing fantasy you want.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
 

Forum List

Back
Top