Trump said he might have to close Mosques :D

[ogibillm]

Trump is not anymore going to close mosques than he's going to deport 11 million people. He can't without the support of congress which he certainly won't get and he would have to get pass the courts which again isn't going to happen.

Frankly, I think he threw out his attack on undocumented immigrants just to test the waters to see if there were enough racists, protectionists, and lunatics out there and sure enough there was. In fact, his attack was so successful at getting support, he decide to go after the American Muslims. I suppose it he's successful here, he'll go after blacks. It makes good political sense because the Democrats are going to get the minority vote anyway so why not turn it to his advantage.

As far as fulfilling his promising, he has a perfect out. Those gutless professional politicians in congress and liberal judges will tie his hands.

You are talking as though deporting illegal aliens was illegal. EARTH TO FLOPPER. NOT deporting them is illegal. What is also illegal, is the existence on mosques in America. Closing them is required by law.

I don't know if the mosques will (hopefully) be closed, but Operation ******* 2 is 14 months away.

PS - to call an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is about equivalent to calling a bank robber an "informal withdrawl agent."

It's amazing that you can be so willfully ignorant.

Why do you hate this country and our Constitution?

 

[protectionist]

Common sense answer: Do whatever it takes to declare it Non-Religion. Close down all Mosque, Tax exempt over. Get as many Muslim to self deport as possible. No new Muslims allowed. Clean up their own "religion", in ten years we take another look. Muslim Probation.

Spot on! Right on the money. You could be our next president.

 

[protectionist]

It's amazing that you can be so willfully ignorant.

Why do you hate this country and our Constitution?

How do you come to think I do ?

And what do you think I'm "ignorant" about ?

 

[amrchaos]

A number of European socialist government are considering shutting mosques where radical sentiments have been voiced, urging jihad. They are also considering deportation of clerics known to preach jihad and demand Sharia be the rule of the land.

They are also considering moving into "no go" zones to open them up to reestablish law and order within them.

Some Constitutions of nations are flexible enough to do that.

Bill of rights--that is an American innovation! Not ever Republic has a a bill of rights or list the exact same rights.

 

[ogibillm]

It's amazing that you can be so willfully ignorant.

Why do you hate this country and our Constitution?

How do you come to think I do ?

And what do you think I'm "ignorant" about ?

I think you hate our country and the Constitution because you are so willing to abandon the one to turn the other into a totalitarian state

And i imagine you're ignorant about a great many things, not the least of which is our Constitution

 

[protectionist]

The Supremacy Clause establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. Since edicts, proclamation, and religious scriptures are not recognize as law by the courts, the Supremacy Clause can not apply to religious "law". Furthermore, it certainly can't be used to determine what constitutes religion.

You can't charge a religious organization such as Islam with sedition because you would have to prove the members of that organization are guilty which would be virtually impossible. In fact, it's very difficult to prove sedition against individuals because there is a fine between sedition as defined in the law and 1st amendment rights. This is why sedition prosecutions are extremely rare. However, it's kind of a moot point since we passed the Patriot Act.

Lastly, the term undocumented immigrant is the correct term for a person believed to be in the country illegally. Only when a court of law has determined guilt is the term illegal immigrant valid.

Your arguments may succeed in the court of public opinion but certainly not in any court of law.

You are displaying MASSIVE ignorance. This is what happens when people only follow liberal media.

Islam is seditious by definition. It is a supremacism. Supremacism are outlawed by the Supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article 6, Section 2). It has long been proven that memberws of Muslim organizations are guilty of sedition, ever since 2004, when thr FBI uncovered the Muslim Brotherhood's infamous Explanatory Memorandum of May 22, 1991, which declares the goal of DESTROYING the US govt and all of western civilization, and making Islam Supreme. (which they have never disavowed) You don't know this ? You've got some studying to do. Here's a start >>

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America"May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).

As for the Supremacy clause it establishes federal above states, sure, but that is secondary to the Supremacy Clause primary function. >> written in BOLD blue >> outlaws supremacisms (other than the supremacy clause itself)

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

PS - I've seen your liberal talking point about states, 10,000 times. Ho hum. Yawn***

Lastly, the term undocumented immigration is FALSE. Illegal aliens are neither "undocumented" nor are they "immigrants". Immigrants are people who have immigrated, ie. gone through the process of inspection and validation by immigration officials. As for documents, illegal aliens have all sorts of them. State ID cards, drivers' licenses, library cards, etc. and many have false documents of other types (birth certificates, voter ID, etc) County ID cards are sold in my local flea market for $10 apiece. This goes back 25 years.
Since illegal aliens are in fact "aliens" (nationals of another country, not the US) they should be called what they are. And they certainly are illegal, when they violate US law by crossing the border without inspection (EWI) or overstaying visas. When a court of law has determined guilt, that is merely a confirmation of the illegality that has been there since the illegal aliens came to be in the US illegally.

 

[Vigilante]

The Supremacy Clause establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. Since edicts, proclamation, and religious scriptures are not recognize as law by the courts, the Supremacy Clause can not apply to religious "law". Furthermore, it certainly can't be used to determine what constitutes religion.

You can't charge a religious organization such as Islam with sedition because you would have to prove the members of that organization are guilty which would be virtually impossible. In fact, it's very difficult to prove sedition against individuals because there is a fine between sedition as defined in the law and 1st amendment rights. This is why sedition prosecutions are extremely rare. However, it's kind of a moot point since we passed the Patriot Act.

Lastly, the term undocumented immigrant is the correct term for a person believed to be in the country illegally. Only when a court of law has determined guilt is the term illegal immigrant valid.

Your arguments may succeed in the court of public opinion but certainly not in any court of law.

You are displaying MASSIVE ignorance. This is what happens when people only follow liberal media.

Islam is seditious by definition. It is a supremacism. Supremacism are outlawed by the Supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article 6, Section 2). It has long been proven that memberws of Muslim organizations are guilty of sedition, ever since 2004, when thr FBI uncovered the Muslim Brotherhood's infamous Explanatory Memorandum of May 22, 1991, which declares the goal of DESTROYING the US govt and all of western civilization, and making Islam Supreme. (which they have never disavowed) You don't know this ? You've got some studying to do. Here's a start >>

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America"May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).

 

[ogibillm]

You are displaying MASSIVE ignorance. This is what happens when people only follow liberal media.

Islam is seditious by definition. It is a supremacism. Supremacism are outlawed by the Supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article 6, Section 2).

You cannot be so idiotic that you actually believe that.

Did you not pass sixth grade?

 

[Flopper]

In other words do exactly what would be done in totalitarian states, trash the constitution, violate the law, and do exactly what Islamic extremist have been praying for. You could be a poster child for ISIS.

I am not certain we have the funding, capability or the will to monitor them while they grow larger under our feet while planning their next spectacular Terrorist event? We have so much else to deal with: BLM Illegals, homeless, shooters etc. yet you all seem to think GOVT capable? If we can shut it down why not ease GOVT workload? GOVT employees are not exactly known to go the extra mile. Things seem almost out of control in so many areas. Re-set. start over. Don't care what ISIS like? they dead soon enough. It about time we stood up to something we can get ahold of. People been walking all over this country and treasury long enough. We upset!

I think you like many in this country are over reacting, due to media coverage and politicians seeking to make political gains out these tragedies. Did you know that there have only been 76 people die in Islamic terrorist attacks in the US since 911. That's just over 5/year. You're 10 times more likely to be hit by lightening. Yet we're ready to deny 12 million people, most of them American citizens the right worship their God.

There's a mosque in the north end of town with hundreds of bouquets of flowers and Islamic prayers for the families of the victims of the Paris attacks. How many Christian churches have you seen in your town that are doing this. I haven't seen a one. Maybe they are too busy trying to shut down mosques.

 

[amrchaos]

The fact that Trump is actually running on a platform of defying the Constitution, and is being cheered on by the nut jobs for his promises to do so, says a whole lot about his base.

There is no way that this man will ever be president of the USA. Granted, there are tens of thousands of nuts out there, but they could not possible steal an election from the sane.

I so wish Obama would take a course on the Constitution. He looks so silly at times.

Refugee ‘Religious Test’ Is ‘Shameful’ and ‘Not American’ … Except that Federal Law Requires It | National Review Online

Problem--the section says

(B) Burden of proof
(i) In general


The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Any refugee that is against ISIS or Assad's regime can be accepted.

Plus, it does not say their religion needs to be verified, it says that religion is a central reason. For instance, not following a certain custom in the religion. Note, the persons religion need not be checked, the fact religion is a central cause is all that matters.

Apparently, National Review is intentionally misrepresenting what the section says to make it seems like Obama is incorrect.

 

[Kondor3]

...Any refugee that is against ISIS or Assad's regime can be accepted...

Which is not the same as MUST be accepted.

It's our country - we can let-in whomever-the-hell we want - and we can keep out whomever-the-hell we want.

Why?

Because it's ours.

No other reasoning is required.

 

[Unkotare]

Rule that Islam is not a religion and then what? Rule that freedom of assembly does not apply to Muslims? Rule that the entire Bill of Rights and all other protected rights in the Constitution do not apply to Muslims?

That you even believe that is feasible makes you the dumbest **** on this board.

Islam is not a religion, and you just insulted millions of people living in countries where Islam is officially designated NOT A RELIGION (Ex. Italy)

Prove that Islam is not a religion. Prove that Islam is not a religion, and Christianity is, and show specifically why one qualifies and the other doesn't.

Because it's our place, and we make the rules, and we can do whatever the hell we want, when threatened? We can declare Islam a piece of coal, if we like.

You're another one who doesn't understand America or the Constitution.

Given Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and FDR's internment of Japanese, I could say the same thing about you.

When Constitutionality and Safety are at odds, Safety almost always wins.

The Constitution is a hallowed and time-tested instrument by which we rule ourselves, as we see fit, and in our own best interests.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Specious and weak.

 

[Kondor3]

Islam is not a religion, and you just insulted millions of people living in countries where Islam is officially designated NOT A RELIGION (Ex. Italy)

Prove that Islam is not a religion. Prove that Islam is not a religion, and Christianity is, and show specifically why one qualifies and the other doesn't.

Because it's our place, and we make the rules, and we can do whatever the hell we want, when threatened? We can declare Islam a piece of coal, if we like.

You're another one who doesn't understand America or the Constitution.

Given Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and FDR's internment of Japanese, I could say the same thing about you.

When Constitutionality and Safety are at odds, Safety almost always wins.

The Constitution is a hallowed and time-tested instrument by which we rule ourselves, as we see fit, and in our own best interests.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Specious and weak.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[Flopper]

The Supremacy Clause establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. Since edicts, proclamation, and religious scriptures are not recognize as law by the courts, the Supremacy Clause can not apply to religious "law". Furthermore, it certainly can't be used to determine what constitutes religion.

You can't charge a religious organization such as Islam with sedition because you would have to prove the members of that organization are guilty which would be virtually impossible. In fact, it's very difficult to prove sedition against individuals because there is a fine between sedition as defined in the law and 1st amendment rights. This is why sedition prosecutions are extremely rare. However, it's kind of a moot point since we passed the Patriot Act.

Lastly, the term undocumented immigrant is the correct term for a person believed to be in the country illegally. Only when a court of law has determined guilt is the term illegal immigrant valid.

Your arguments may succeed in the court of public opinion but certainly not in any court of law.

You are displaying MASSIVE ignorance. This is what happens when people only follow liberal media.

Islam is seditious by definition. It is a supremacism. Supremacism are outlawed by the Supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article 6, Section 2). It has long been proven that memberws of Muslim organizations are guilty of sedition, ever since 2004, when thr FBI uncovered the Muslim Brotherhood's infamous Explanatory Memorandum of May 22, 1991, which declares the goal of DESTROYING the US govt and all of western civilization, and making Islam Supreme. (which they have never disavowed) You don't know this ? You've got some studying to do. Here's a start >>

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America"May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).

Yes, I have a question. Where did you find this crap? It's certainly not from the Koran. The link below to the Koran contains all verses in all major translation.

First off, none of these statements are quotes, so get rid of the quote marks. Second, they are all out context, and the wording has been change to illustrate the authors point of view.

Take any verse an look it up. Then read surrounding verse for context. I think you will see the meaning is quite different than the above.

For example you claim verse 8:12 says,
"Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"

What the Koran actual says.
"(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

Now the Context:
This is the story of the Battle of Uhud. The battle of Uhud took place when Abu Sufyan, a disbeliever and leader of Quraysh tribe planned to attack the messenger and avenge their loss of the battle of Badr. The reason for the battle was to resist the Quraysh attack.

Islamic fundamentalist and Islamophobes take all reference to destroying infidels to mean, Muslims should go out into the world and destroy all non-believers, peaceful or warlike. That's completely wrong. In Mohammad's day, there were only his followers and pagan tribes (infidels). They were bitter enemies that engaged in a number of battles. So when the Koran refers to infidels, it means enemies and it is referring to those tribes.

What is missing from these quotes are dozens of verses that promote peace, love, and forgiveness. In fact the very name Islam is derived from Arabic meaning peace.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

 

[protectionist]

A number of European socialist government are considering shutting mosques where radical sentiments have been voiced, urging jihad. They are also considering deportation of clerics known to preach jihad and demand Sharia be the rule of the land.

They are also considering moving into "no go" zones to open them up to reestablish law and order within them.

Some Constitutions of nations are flexible enough to do that.

Bill of rights--that is an American innovation! Not ever Republic has a a bill of rights or list the exact same rights.

Bill of Rights doesn't trump the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause trumps everything in the Constitution.

 

[protectionist]

Islamic fundamentalist and Islamophobes take all reference to destroying infidels to mean, Muslims should go out into the world and destroy all non-believers, peaceful or warlike. That's completely wrong. In Mohammad's day, there were only his followers and pagan tribes (infidels). They were bitter enemies that engaged in a number of battles. So when the Koran refers to infidels, it means enemies and it is referring to those tribes.

What is missing from these quotes are dozens of verses that promote peace, love, and forgiveness. In fact the very name Islam is derived from Arabic meaning peace.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

So now you are invited to go out into the world, and inform the millions of jihadists of what you just said here. Tell them they're wrong, and must stop their violence. Just be advised that millions of people have been trying to do that for 1400 years, and so far it hasn't stopped jihad. But GOOD LUCK!!!

 

[protectionist]

I think you like many in this country are over reacting, due to media coverage and politicians seeking to make political gains out these tragedies. Did you know that there have only been 76 people die in Islamic terrorist attacks in the US since 911. That's just over 5/year. You're 10 times more likely to be hit by lightening. Yet we're ready to deny 12 million people, most of them American citizens the right worship their God.

There's a mosque in the north end of town with hundreds of bouquets of flowers and Islamic prayers for the families of the victims of the Paris attacks. How many Christian churches have you seen in your town that are doing this. I haven't seen a one. Maybe they are too busy trying to shut down mosques.

Lightning strikes rarely kill more than one person at a time. ONE jihadist nuclear bomb attack in a large, high population density city like New York could kill millions. So could a biological attack, when the biological agent is contagious, and the population itself becomes part of the attack apparatus.

 

[protectionist]

You cannot be so idiotic that you actually believe that.

Did you not pass sixth grade?

There is nothing to "believe".. It is pure FACT. Can you not read ? Did you not pass sixth grade? Do you need the supremacy words made even bigger ?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

 

[Flopper]

I think you like many in this country are over reacting, due to media coverage and politicians seeking to make political gains out these tragedies. Did you know that there have only been 76 people die in Islamic terrorist attacks in the US since 911. That's just over 5/year. You're 10 times more likely to be hit by lightening. Yet we're ready to deny 12 million people, most of them American citizens the right worship their God.

There's a mosque in the north end of town with hundreds of bouquets of flowers and Islamic prayers for the families of the victims of the Paris attacks. How many Christian churches have you seen in your town that are doing this. I haven't seen a one. Maybe they are too busy trying to shut down mosques.

Lightning strikes rarely kill more than one person at a time. ONE jihadist nuclear bomb attack in a large, high population density city like New York could kill millions. So could a biological attack, when the biological agent is contagious, and the population itself becomes part of the attack apparatus.

In that case, we better concentrate on stopping that one jihadist with the nuclear bomb. I know you must find that a novel idea.

 

[Skylar]

You cannot be so idiotic that you actually believe that.

Did you not pass sixth grade?

There is nothing to "believe".. It is pure FACT. Can you not read ? Did you not pass sixth grade? Do you need the supremacy words made even bigger ?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Its not 'pure fact' that Islam isn't a religion or that Muslims have no right to practice it. That's just you citing yourself.

What you think a religion is, what you think rights are, what you think we should do to Muslims.....is gloriously irrelevant. As you're nobody.