TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

RE: Religious war

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
burns07 wrote:

LL you must see that these terrorists have no regard for THEIR OWN children--how could they possibly have any for ours?--by refusing to engage them, to destroy them you are putting not only the lives of THEIR innocent children in jeopardy but also those of our very own--is it not one of our primary responsibilities to protect children and the helpless ?
Yes, it is. ALL of them, not just the ones some of you deem worthy. We are talking about the baby in the house of a family who has nothing to do with ISIS and yet dies because bombing was deemed easier than surgical strikes.

Sometimes, that's just what has to happen...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
This has reached levels of ridiculousness. You don't know what snipers and navy seals do, Lily thinks she can make crap up (either that or she can't read) and the fact that several of you think it's ok to kill innocent civilians in countries we are not at war with is insane. The world has gone flippin' insane.
99% of the military are NOT Seals and Snipers. A vast majority are kids 18-24 that have had exactly 6 weeks training. You think they are taught not to shoot movement in a crisis situation? That's actually laughable...

Well, it's a new kind of world and a new kind of war. CHANGE to fit the needs and the current situtation - don't just rely on the old methods and expect them to work.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
burns07 wrote:

LL you must see that these terrorists have no regard for THEIR OWN children--how could they possibly have any for ours?--by refusing to engage them, to destroy them you are putting not only the lives of THEIR innocent children in jeopardy but also those of our very own--is it not one of our primary responsibilities to protect children and the helpless ?
Yes, it is. ALL of them, not just the ones some of you deem worthy. We are talking about the baby in the house of a family who has nothing to do with ISIS and yet dies because bombing was deemed easier than surgical strikes.
Sometimes, that's just what has to happen...

Not if it can be helped.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Lawyerlady wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
This whole thread has become ridiculous.

I use to wonder how smart people could become deceived to just allow the antichrist and false prophet take over.

But after this thread, I can see it.

A person can have eyes and ears but they dont always see and hear.

-- Edited by lilyofcourse on Thursday 17th of December 2015 02:03:13 PM
I can see exactly how it can happen. People allow the evil of the enemy to corrupt their judgment. Jesus would not want you killing innocent children in his name even in what you claim is your own defense. The fact that you could even THINK that he would is the devil in your heart and mind.
My God LL.
You keep saying this. Keep arguing and calling those who disagree with you terrorists.
But you have yet to come up with a viable recourse.
You don't like closing boarders to muslims, you don't like surgical strikes and you don't want soldiers defending themselves.
You are the one who can't see or hear the truth.
You immediately jumped to "Lily wants to kill everyone" on this thread.
Although the OP isn't about promoting war.
It's about why this is happening.
You keep going on and on about others and how wrong they are about their way of thinking. Even using Jesus and Christianity as a weapon against those who don't agree with you.
But what exactly is any of it going to change?

That is absolutely incorrect. I've stated numerous times to close the borders, and I've said that surgical strikes are what is needed - NOT carpet bombing. And I have NEVER said soldiers shouldn't defend themselves - but I said they should be trained well enough not to shoot at everything that moves.
You are the queen of making crap up when you can't argue the facts.

Ok. You said we can't close boarders and deny people because of religion, that it was against the Constitution.

You said what about the kids in those buildings during a surgical strike.

You said a soldier shouldn't shoot when in a hostile environment and after being shot at repeatedly.

You assume to know what being on the Frontline is like.

I dont. You dont. Only those there know what that is.

And let's look at this whole thread.

I have tried time and time again to turn the discussion back to the OP.

You have been determined to belittle, call names and inflame.

Let's argue facts.

Both the Bible and the Quran tell us about false prophets and the antichrist.

I started this thread to discuss the Bible prophecy of the last days.

That was the purpose.

You turned it into a board fight.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Honestly, if this is what it has to be, I'd rather the thread be closed and allowed to fall.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Oh, poor baby!

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

NO, you cannot close borders for religious purposes only - that is against the Constitution. But I did say they could be closed to any person from a country known for terrorism - try to pay attention to all the facts.

I have no idea what you are talking about related to surgical strikes - I said that is what they should use. I was and always have been talking about bombing without care.

I said a soldier shouldn't shoot at anything that moves - it could be his own men, for cripes sake. And they DO get training about seeing before you shoot. Trying to say they don't is crap.

You started this thread directly from the other thread to support the wholesale murder of Muslims. If you dare try to dispute that, you are lying. You are trying to use the BIBLE as justification to slaughter Muslims and that is DISGUSTING.

burns07 · Guru

Not if it can be helped
____________________

of course not and don't think anyone here is advocating the indiscriminate bombing of children and innocents--at the same time, ISIS needs to know and believe that we will not let them hide behind children/innocents to save themselves

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
NO, you cannot close borders for religious purposes only - that is against the Constitution. But I did say they could be closed to any person from a country known for terrorism - try to pay attention to all the facts.

I have no idea what you are talking about related to surgical strikes - I said that is what they should use. I was and always have been talking about bombing without care.

I said a soldier shouldn't shoot at anything that moves - it could be his own men, for cripes sake. And they DO get training about seeing before you shoot. Trying to say they don't is crap.

You started this thread directly from the other thread to support the wholesale murder of Muslims. If you dare try to dispute that, you are lying. You are trying to use the BIBLE as justification to slaughter Muslims and that is DISGUSTING.

Genuinely curious, where does the Constitution say this?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
NO, you cannot close borders for religious purposes only - that is against the Constitution. But I did say they could be closed to any person from a country known for terrorism - try to pay attention to all the facts.

I have no idea what you are talking about related to surgical strikes - I said that is what they should use. I was and always have been talking about bombing without care.

I said a soldier shouldn't shoot at anything that moves - it could be his own men, for cripes sake. And they DO get training about seeing before you shoot. Trying to say they don't is crap.

You started this thread directly from the other thread to support the wholesale murder of Muslims. If you dare try to dispute that, you are lying. You are trying to use the BIBLE as justification to slaughter Muslims and that is DISGUSTING.
Genuinely curious, where does the Constitution say this?

The First Amendment -Congress shall make no law abridging the free excercise of religion. I'm pretty sure a law saying we are not going to let in any Muslims would be making a law abridging the free excercise thereof.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
NO, you cannot close borders for religious purposes only - that is against the Constitution. But I did say they could be closed to any person from a country known for terrorism - try to pay attention to all the facts.

I have no idea what you are talking about related to surgical strikes - I said that is what they should use. I was and always have been talking about bombing without care.

I said a soldier shouldn't shoot at anything that moves - it could be his own men, for cripes sake. And they DO get training about seeing before you shoot. Trying to say they don't is crap.

You started this thread directly from the other thread to support the wholesale murder of Muslims. If you dare try to dispute that, you are lying. You are trying to use the BIBLE as justification to slaughter Muslims and that is DISGUSTING.
Genuinely curious, where does the Constitution say this?
The First Amendment -Congress shall make no law abridging the free excercise of religion. I'm pretty sure a law saying we are not going to let in any Muslims would be making a law abridging the free excercise thereof.

The Constitution protects CITIZENS. Non-Citizens do not get the protection of out Constitution...

Ohfour · Hooker

And the fact that they aren't even HERE yet gives them no protection whatsoever...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
NO, you cannot close borders for religious purposes only - that is against the Constitution. But I did say they could be closed to any person from a country known for terrorism - try to pay attention to all the facts.

I have no idea what you are talking about related to surgical strikes - I said that is what they should use. I was and always have been talking about bombing without care.

I said a soldier shouldn't shoot at anything that moves - it could be his own men, for cripes sake. And they DO get training about seeing before you shoot. Trying to say they don't is crap.

You started this thread directly from the other thread to support the wholesale murder of Muslims. If you dare try to dispute that, you are lying. You are trying to use the BIBLE as justification to slaughter Muslims and that is DISGUSTING.
Genuinely curious, where does the Constitution say this?
The First Amendment -Congress shall make no law abridging the free excercise of religion. I'm pretty sure a law saying we are not going to let in any Muslims would be making a law abridging the free excercise thereof.
The Constitution protects CITIZENS. Non-Citizens do not get the protection of out Constitution...

Wow. Not sure how an educated American could be so wrong. It protects within the jurisdiction of the United States equally, citizen or not under the 14th Amendment. But regardless - this isn't about individual citizens - it says Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. They can't make that law. Period.

Ohfour · Hooker

Doesn't say they can't deny entry for any reason...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Doesn't say they can't deny entry for any reason...

Actually, it says they have the power to establish a UNIFORM RULE for naturalization. That means no discrimination. Have you actually read the Constitution?

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Doesn't say they can't deny entry for any reason...
Actually, it says they have the power to establish a UNIFORM RULE for naturalization. That means no discrimination. Have you actually read the Constitution?

They have the POWER, not the obligation. And they have the power to deny a group of people...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Doesn't say they can't deny entry for any reason...
Actually, it says they have the power to establish a UNIFORM RULE for naturalization. That means no discrimination. Have you actually read the Constitution?
They have the POWER, not the obligation. And they have the power to deny a group of people...

Not based on religion.

FNW · Guru

LL, I suggest you read Korematsu v. United States. This case challenged detention and curfew of Japanese during WWII. Essentially, the Court held that in order to prevent espionage and sabotage, the authorities could restrict the movement of these persons by a curfew order, even by a regulation excluding them from defined areas.

I do not see where this cases has ever been overturned. Scholars have debated this decision. But even Justice Rehnquist felt future wartime Presidents would act no differently, and Justice Scalia said that although it was wrong, it could happen again during wartime.

So yes, yes they can suspend entrance into the U.S., and restrain those that are here.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Doesn't say they can't deny entry for any reason...
Actually, it says they have the power to establish a UNIFORM RULE for naturalization. That means no discrimination. Have you actually read the Constitution?
They have the POWER, not the obligation. And they have the power to deny a group of people...
Not based on religion.

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

FNW · Guru

How is religious protection any broader than race, origin, color, etc.?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

FNW wrote:
LL, I suggest you read Korematsu v. United States. This case challenged detention and curfew of Japanese during WWII. Essentially, the Court held that in order to prevent espionage and sabotage, the authorities could restrict the movement of these persons by a curfew order, even by a regulation excluding them from defined areas.

I do not see where this cases has ever been overturned. Scholars have debated this decision. But even Justice Rehnquist felt future wartime Presidents would act no differently, and Justice Scalia said that although it was wrong, it could happen again during wartime.

So yes, yes they can suspend entrance into the U.S., and restrain those that are here.

That was not based on religion. And are people having trouble with the font? I already said they could stop people from specific COUNTRIES coming - but they cannot say Muslims can't come in. That would be a law restricting religion.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
LL, I suggest you read Korematsu v. United States. This case challenged detention and curfew of Japanese during WWII. Essentially, the Court held that in order to prevent espionage and sabotage, the authorities could restrict the movement of these persons by a curfew order, even by a regulation excluding them from defined areas.

I do not see where this cases has ever been overturned. Scholars have debated this decision. But even Justice Rehnquist felt future wartime Presidents would act no differently, and Justice Scalia said that although it was wrong, it could happen again during wartime.

So yes, yes they can suspend entrance into the U.S., and restrain those that are here.
That was not based on religion. And are people having trouble with the font? I already said they could stop people from specific COUNTRIES coming - but they cannot say Muslims can't come in. That would be a law restricting religion.

Of people not yet in this country. I have no problem with that...

FNW · Guru

Korematsu was born in the U.S. and was a citizen. I would argue that this case would extend to radical islamists who have declared jihad against non-muslims.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

FNW wrote:
Korematsu was born in the U.S. and was a citizen. I would argue that this case would extend to radical islamists who have declared jihad against non-muslims.

Those would be terrorists. They wouldn't be detained for their religion, but their murderous intent.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
LL, I suggest you read Korematsu v. United States. This case challenged detention and curfew of Japanese during WWII. Essentially, the Court held that in order to prevent espionage and sabotage, the authorities could restrict the movement of these persons by a curfew order, even by a regulation excluding them from defined areas.

I do not see where this cases has ever been overturned. Scholars have debated this decision. But even Justice Rehnquist felt future wartime Presidents would act no differently, and Justice Scalia said that although it was wrong, it could happen again during wartime.

So yes, yes they can suspend entrance into the U.S., and restrain those that are here.
That was not based on religion. And are people having trouble with the font? I already said they could stop people from specific COUNTRIES coming - but they cannot say Muslims can't come in. That would be a law restricting religion.

Of people not yet in this country. I have no problem with that...

I happen to like our Constitution and do not think it should be eroded any time there is a threat.

burns07 · Guru

an effective vetting process ( that actually works ) would eliminate the majority of " religious discrimination " questions--preventing the entry of known/suspected criminals( and would classify terrorists/potential terrorists as such )is certainly our prerogative and if the majority of them happen to be muslims, what of it?

FNW · Guru

They detained a group based on their ethnicity, so how is religion any different? Once U.S. allegiance was conceded, they were released. How would this be any different? Yes, it's religion. But how is this different?

Ohfour · Hooker

burns07 wrote:

an effective vetting process ( that actually works ) would eliminate the majority of " religious discrimination " questions--preventing the entry of known/suspected criminals( and would classify terrorists/potential terrorists as such )is certainly our prerogative and if the majority of them happen to be muslims, what of it?

Then they claim religious discrimination and we are back to square one...

Ohfour · Hooker

FNW wrote:
They detained a group based on their ethnicity, so how is religion any different? Once U.S. allegiance was conceded, they were released. How would this be any different? Yes, it's religion. But how is this different?

They detained CITIZENS, for no other reason than their heritage was Japanese.

FNW · Guru

They also detained non-citizens and prevented Japanese from entering the country, if I recall.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Lawyerlady wrote:
NO, you cannot close borders for religious purposes only - that is against the Constitution. But I did say they could be closed to any person from a country known for terrorism - try to pay attention to all the facts.

I have no idea what you are talking about related to surgical strikes - I said that is what they should use. I was and always have been talking about bombing without care.

I said a soldier shouldn't shoot at anything that moves - it could be his own men, for cripes sake. And they DO get training about seeing before you shoot. Trying to say they don't is crap.

You started this thread directly from the other thread to support the wholesale murder of Muslims. If you dare try to dispute that, you are lying. You are trying to use the BIBLE as justification to slaughter Muslims and that is DISGUSTING.

No. I did not.

I am doing no such thing.

My first post after the article was that it could be an interesting discussion.

You and NJN jumped in with accusations and spite.

I attempted to discuss the OP.

You continued with the personal attacks.

You can try all you want to assume you know my motives.

You've posted with me a long time.

Have you ever known me to beat around the bush?

No. I say what is on my mind. Period.

You want to keep up your name calling and trying to paint me into a corner, go ahead.

I'm done defending myself to you.

Any rational person can read this thread and see who the aggressor is.

So have at it.

The facts are this, nothing is going to stop Islam until God send Jesus back.

I'm not afraid of what is going to happen. It's all laid out in the Bible.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

If anyone wants to actually discuss the OP, great, I'm in.

Otherwise ya'll can tear each other apart if you want.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

"...the aggressor..."

I am

My tip o' the day: Be careful when you insult a Mod.

flan

burns07 · Guru

don't know if the end times are upon us or not--don't know what each of you do or don't believe--essentially irrelevant in any case--what IS important is what the terrorists believe--they have stated, shown and proven they wish to destroy all of us, to impose sharia law, to subjugate/execute ALL nonbelievers--that is the reality we need to address and deal with

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
FNW wrote:
They detained a group based on their ethnicity, so how is religion any different? Once U.S. allegiance was conceded, they were released. How would this be any different? Yes, it's religion. But how is this different?
They detained CITIZENS, for no other reason than their heritage was Japanese.

Which was not right. Our country is not perfect and has made mistakes. I have no issue with keeping Japanese people out during WWII or detaining non-citizen Japanese because we were at war with Japan, but American citizens were deprived their freedom without due process of law, and it was not right.

We are fighting an ideology - not a country. And fear mongering and knee-jerk reactions that threaten the fabric of our nation and our Constitution is not the answer. If you allow them to change who we are through fear - they have already won.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
FNW wrote:
They detained a group based on their ethnicity, so how is religion any different? Once U.S. allegiance was conceded, they were released. How would this be any different? Yes, it's religion. But how is this different?
They detained CITIZENS, for no other reason than their heritage was Japanese.
Which was not right. Our country is not perfect and has made mistakes. I have no issue with keeping Japanese people out during WWII or detaining non-citizen Japanese because we were at war with Japan, but American citizens were deprived their freedom without due process of law, and it was not right.
We are fighting an ideology - not a country. And fear mongering and knee-jerk reactions that threaten the fabric of our nation and our Constitution is not the answer. If you allow them to change who we are through fear - they have already won.

Well, it's been upheld and a current SCOTUS said he does not find it unconstitutional...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
FNW wrote:
They detained a group based on their ethnicity, so how is religion any different? Once U.S. allegiance was conceded, they were released. How would this be any different? Yes, it's religion. But how is this different?
They detained CITIZENS, for no other reason than their heritage was Japanese.
Which was not right. Our country is not perfect and has made mistakes. I have no issue with keeping Japanese people out during WWII or detaining non-citizen Japanese because we were at war with Japan, but American citizens were deprived their freedom without due process of law, and it was not right.
We are fighting an ideology - not a country. And fear mongering and knee-jerk reactions that threaten the fabric of our nation and our Constitution is not the answer. If you allow them to change who we are through fear - they have already won.
Well, it's been upheld and a current SCOTUS said he does not find it unconstitutional...

It still wasn't right.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
NO, you cannot close borders for religious purposes only - that is against the Constitution. But I did say they could be closed to any person from a country known for terrorism - try to pay attention to all the facts.

I have no idea what you are talking about related to surgical strikes - I said that is what they should use. I was and always have been talking about bombing without care.

I said a soldier shouldn't shoot at anything that moves - it could be his own men, for cripes sake. And they DO get training about seeing before you shoot. Trying to say they don't is crap.

You started this thread directly from the other thread to support the wholesale murder of Muslims. If you dare try to dispute that, you are lying. You are trying to use the BIBLE as justification to slaughter Muslims and that is DISGUSTING.
No. I did not.
I am doing no such thing.
My first post after the article was that it could be an interesting discussion.
You and NJN jumped in with accusations and spite.
I attempted to discuss the OP.
You continued with the personal attacks.
You can try all you want to assume you know my motives.
You've posted with me a long time.
Have you ever known me to beat around the bush?
No. I say what is on my mind. Period.
You want to keep up your name calling and trying to paint me into a corner, go ahead.
I'm done defending myself to you.
Any rational person can read this thread and see who the aggressor is.
So have at it.
The facts are this, nothing is going to stop Islam until God send Jesus back.
I'm not afraid of what is going to happen. It's all laid out in the Bible.

Lily - your history precedes you and this thread.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

We can close our borders to anyone and everyone. There isn't some inalienable right to migrate to this country. And the Constitution applies to US Citizens, not the world.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
We can close our borders to anyone and everyone. There isn't some inalienable right to migrate to this country. And the Constitution applies to US Citizens, not the world.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
We can close our borders to anyone and everyone. There isn't some inalienable right to migrate to this country. And the Constitution applies to US Citizens, not the world.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!

I don't disagree. Keep everyone out. But you can't make a law excluding only people of a certain religion. You are going to have to base it on something else.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

While the president condemns Donald Trump for suggesting that maybe we might want to slow down the flow of potential Islamic terrorists into our nation by halting the influx of Muslims until we have better vetting systems in place, it turns out The Donald actually has the law on his side. (Of course I realize the irony of discussing “law” when we’re talking about Barack Obama, but bear with me…)

Tim Brown at Freedom Outpost astutely points out that we already have a law in place that bars the immigration of people who wish to overthrow our government, commit acts of sabotage – including murder – or teach or preach these ideas. Well isn’t THAT interesting? And it’s been around for more than 60 years.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, was passed June 27, 1952 and revised the United States’ laws regarding immigration, naturalization and nationality. It was originally passed to prevent Communists from entering the country, but check out the text and see if it doesn’t apply right now.

Section 313 states the following:

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) , no person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States-

(1) who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government; or 3) who, although not within any of the other provisions of this section, advocates … the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under authority of such organizations or paid for by the funds of such organization; or

(4) who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or

(5) who writes or publishes or causes to be written or published, or who knowingly circulates, distributes, prints, or displays, or knowingly causes to be circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed or who knowingly has in his possession for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display, any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government, or advocating (A) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or (E) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship; or

(6) who is a member of or affiliated with any organization, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, or display, any written or printed matter of the character described in subparagraph (5).

Chapter 2, Section 212 says entry to the U.S. should be prohibited if the person belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the U.S. government by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.”

Well…as Brown points out, “The Koran and the Hadiths present Sharia and demand submission to Islam” which as we all know is antithetical to the foundation of our nation and the U.S. Constitution.

And Islamists have made it no secret they wish to expand their caliphate across the globe and enact strict Sharia Law.

Critics will call this a “religious test,” but if you pledge allegiance to a faith which demands you adhere to Sharia Law over and above the U.S. Constitution, why would you want to live here anyway?

It’s not a religious test; it’s a test of fealty to the laws of this land. This should be the measure of all who wish to immigrate to our shores.

And we’ve already passed a law to ensure it. But clearly under this administration, laws have little meaning unless they advance the progressive agenda.

[Note: This article was written by Michele Hickford

www.allenbwest.com/2015/12/this-us-law-proves-trumps-plan-for-muslims-is-perfectly-legal/

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Reality check here: a President Trump would have the power to ban certain people from entering the country.

Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182

“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.”

Yes, the president has the authority to do exactly what trump is describing. And by the way, this kind of thing has happened before.

In the late 1800s, Congress passed legislation broadly aimed at halting the immigration of Chinese laborers. Those were not fully repealed until 1943. Quotas limiting immigration based on race and national origin were also enacted in the early 1900s. Racial quotas were repealed in 1952, and those limiting people based on national origin were eliminated in 1965.

So what you need to know is that when so many people are arguing about what a president legally can do, they are missing the point about what a president should do.

Should we ban an entire group of people from entering the country based on their religious views?

That is a debate a lot of people are having. But let’s consider this: remember that soundbite from Senator Graham calling Trump this:

“He’s a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.”

You want a reality check? Senator Graham acts like he wants to stand up for Muslim immigrants coming to the United States. And yet, he has advocated for every military and drone bombing of Muslim people living in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and called for it to happen in Iran as well—policies that have ended hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives.

So a question for these enraged Republican candidates who want to make sure that we respect Muslims coming to the United States: are Muslim lives only valuable when they are on U.S. soil?

That’s Reality Check
truthinmedia.com/reality-check-trump-right-legal-authority-ban-muslim-immigrants-pres-candidates-hypocritical-muslims/

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
burns07 wrote:

LL you must see that these terrorists have no regard for THEIR OWN children--how could they possibly have any for ours?--by refusing to engage them, to destroy them you are putting not only the lives of THEIR innocent children in jeopardy but also those of our very own--is it not one of our primary responsibilities to protect children and the helpless ?
Yes, it is. ALL of them, not just the ones some of you deem worthy. We are talking about the baby in the house of a family who has nothing to do with ISIS and yet dies because bombing was deemed easier than surgical strikes.

"Surgical strikes"???? No matter how you do it, there will be collateral damage. A bomb is a bomb.

burns07 · Guru

during WWII, as the tide was turning, the brits and americans were bombing the bejesus out of germany, particularly their population centers--the army air corps ( and the government ) were very careful to refer to these operations as " strategic bombing " against military/industrial targets rather than " area bombing " which was the euphemism for indiscriminate bombing of population centers, as the folks back home would raise bloody hell over bombing innocent civilians ( women and children )--as everyone in the theater on both sides knew, the majority of occupants in the german ( and later the japanese ) cities were either the very old or the very young--most of the young men were already gone off to the army or already dead--these were principally non-combatants being targeted and killed

my father flew a lot of those missions in europe--thirty years after the fact i asked him how he felt about what they'd done--he rarely spoke of the war--he said it was " g-damned awful but it had to be done. we had to stop them. we had to end it. there was no other way. "

he was the most ethical, principled man i have ever known--a reluctant warrior to be sure but possessed of tremendous courage--he and all the men and women like him " did what had to be done " to ensure the survival of europe and, ultimately, of our own way of life--thank god for those men and women and their courage and sacrifice in the face of titanic evil

may we have the same courage and resolve when our time comes

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Is your caps key broken burns?

You are NOT e e cummings...

flan

FNW · Guru

Grammar police!

ed11563 · Guru

FNW wrote:
Grammar police!

Yes? How may we help you?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, if you all want to open the flood gates to them, you are going to fundamentally transform America for your children. If you can't see it, this is an overthrow of our country and culture, coming within from the highest office in the land choosing to turn a blind eye. They don't wish to come to the Melting Pot of what America is. They wish to come here and live Sharia Law. So, if that is what you want your daughters to live under, then continue supporting those kinds of policies.