The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Trump and No Muslims
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 9, 2015
Author: blogger posted
Post Date: 2015-12-09 12:23:19 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 6413
Comments: 34
countryconservatives.prob.../776/trump-muslims?page=1 Public Law 414 Islam, by law, is prohibited from US immigration. The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tpaine (#0)
DNC - Hamas - isis - black lives matter ... rape - riot - pillage - plunder - sudden jihad syndrome --- what's the difference !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited This concept will likely never take form because like Christianity, the government refuses to study the guiding principals of the religion and its documents to determine its intent upon the populace. Instead of "freedom of religion", the government practices "freedom from religion" and regulates the suppression of religious separation and consideration. To summarize, the government turns a blind eye to the intent of a religion, thus ignoring the impact and implications that go along with allowing people to freely practice their religion's teachings, however harmful those teachings may be for society.
Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. If TRUMP or Limbaugh publicised this act, and its interpretation, the administration could not ignore it. And it's up to us to correct the government...
By what standard of proof?
Islam is a religion By what standard of proof? Try reading the article in context.. It says the opposite...
The first amendment "freedom of religion" does not apply to foreigners outside of the United States. What's next? Are they going to going to claim a right to keep and bear arms? WE decide who comes into our country. Period.
define WE
Not Aussies, not pedophile worshipper goat fuckers. We, America and our leaders.
Do you have those over there? We don't have them here we just have kiwi. You know we had a leader who made exactly the same statement once, they replaced him with a dickhead
We don't want that sort of thing do we
The donkey video was from Iraq Freedom.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Now I know ancient customs transferred sin to a scapegoat but isn't this carrying it a little far, blaming those promiscous sheep and goats or should we look at the custom of the scapegoat in a new light No, it's just another of those twists Mudhutmad thought up to pass away the desert nights. He was right round the twist, a pedophile and a goat rider
I don't want to watch arab porn. Just imagine realising that you fought for the freedom of arabs to fuck sheep and donkeys. personally I go back to what I said long ago, pull out and leave them to sort it out for themselves and while you are at it build a great wall to keep them there. No more live sheep exports to the middle east, they are not fucking our sheep
Zing!
What a potty mouth you've become. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
I just found such comments from a Christian published author and theologian as, well, unexpected.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Yes every now and then I revert to my pre Christian roots, you know besetting sins and all that but good news the grace of God abounds. We are all corrupted by this society unfortunately and some have realised that like Paul we must be all things to all people haven't you ever wondered what that means? How do you know me anyway?
Trust me I understand. That's why we are in this together as Christians. I know what I know about your background as you on an open thread recommended one of your books. Books have authors:) For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
There is more than one of us
WE decide nothing. WE (the People) cannot vote our way out of a wet paper sack. Observe the last 22 years and tell me if that is not so...
WE decide nothing. WE (the People) cannot vote our way out of a wet paper sack. Observe the last 22 years and tell me if that is not so We are periodically given to celebrate our choice between two affable self serving bufoons by political parties who neither exercise, nor want, quality control. You have a problem with that?
We can't? Who says so? Somebody got out of bed and voted for the current crop of politicians. Perhaps you mean there were a lot of people who didn't vote the way you would have preferred. I'll agree with you there. But that's the system we have, and we have the politicians we deserve.
Perhaps you mean there were a lot of people who didn't vote the way you would have preferred. No, I mean that despite the fact that voters have the ability to decide their fate, they continue to elect politicians who have an alternate agenda. WE (the People) no longer exercise due diligence in choosing a candidate that can represent what we need and instead end up choosing a candidate that represents all of the petty things that we desire. All of the presidents for the last 22+ years have increased the amount of pandering to the public whims. This is also true of Congress. WE no longer have the ability to sway Congressional behavior with elections either. No matter how strongly the public is against an issue, Congress tends to vote according to donor wishes and always with the public's open wallet. They openly pander to our requests, then do the opposite when the vote is upon them. It matters not what a poll says, as long as it is not within an election cycle. Why do you think they always reserve the real political actions for in between election cycles and lame duck sessions?
Bert --- This concept will likely never take form because like Christianity, the government refuses to study the guiding principals of the religion and its documents to determine its intent upon the populace. Instead of "freedom of religion", the government practices "freedom from religion" and regulates the suppression of religious separation and consideration. To summarize, the government turns a blind eye to the intent of a religion, thus ignoring the impact and implications that go along with allowing people to freely practice their religion's teachings, however harmful those teachings may be for society. ---- TheFireBert Yes indeed; we need local laws saying that ANY anti-constitutional teachings (at any venue, public or private) will not be tolerated, and will be prosecuted as a misdemeanor - inciting to overthrow legitimate government.. We'd have a hell of a time getting the SCOTUS to approve, but perhaps a few month's in the local jail would stop some of the agitprop speading assholes.
That would be a violation of the first amendment. You philisophy on this seems to be ignore the constitution in order to save it.
--,anti-constitutional teachings (at any venue, public or private) --- will be prosecuted as a misdemeanor - inciting to overthrow legitimate government.. Inciting to riot laws are not a violation of the 1st. Inciting to overthrow constitutional government laws would not be a violation of the 1st.
No, we do. It's just that there are more people who vote for the candidate that represents what they need. "No matter how strongly the public is against an issue, Congress tends to vote according to donor wishes and always with the public's open wallet." Then vote them out. Like the voters did to (House Majority Leader) Eric Cantor.
Islam is not a “religion” in the American sense. It is a religion coupled with a governmental system guided by Sharia law.
Islam is a form of communicable aggressive hostile mental illness marked by a denial of its deficiencies and intent which evidences itself as severe paranoia. Its paranoia subjectively justifies any form of hostile acts (in defense of itself) and makes it extremely dangerous.
Yep. Do whatever you want then simply say insha'Allah -- Allah's will.
Yep. Do whatever you want then simply say insha'Allah -- Allah's will. It's apparent you've caught onto something extremely intelligent. Don't let go of it!
#2. To: tpaine (#0)
Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government.
#3. To: TheFireBert, A Y'ALL (#2)
Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today.
To summarize, the government turns a blind eye to the intent of a religion, thus ignoring the impact and implications that go along with allowing people to freely practice their religion's teachings, however harmful those teachings may be for society.
#4. To: tpaine (#0)
Islam is a religion
#5. To: rlk (#4)
Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited..
#6. To: TheFireBert (#2)
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
WE decide who comes into our country.
#8. To: paraclete (#7)
define WE
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8)
pedophile worshipper goat fuckers.
#10. To: paraclete (#9)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#13. To: paraclete, redleghunter (#11)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#13)
(Edited)
arn't you glad you cleared that up for us infidels
#15. To: redleghunter (#12)
(Edited)
The donkey video was from Iraq Freedom
#16. To: A K A Stone, Deckard (#8)
Not Aussies, not pedophile worshipper goat fuckers.
#17. To: paraclete (#15)
Just imagine realising that you fought for the freedom of arabs to fuck sheep and donkeys
#18. To: redleghunter (#17)
Only when I'm dealing with those who don't understand anything else or I'm discussing Muslim atrocities
#19. To: paraclete (#18)
#20. To: redleghunter (#19)
(Edited)
#21. To: paraclete (#20)
#22. To: redleghunter (#21)
#23. To: misterwhite (#6)
WE decide who comes into our country.
#24. To: TheFireBert (#23)
WE decide who comes into our country.
#25. To: TheFireBert (#23)
"WE (the People) cannot vote our way out of a wet paper sack."
#26. To: misterwhite (#25)
"WE (the People) cannot vote our way out of a wet paper sack."
#27. To: TheFireBert (#26)
Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited. -- from the article..
#28. To: tpaine (#27)
Yes indeed; we need local laws saying that ANY anti-constitutional teachings (at any venue, public or private) will not be tolerated, and will be prosecuted as a misdemeanor - inciting to overthrow legitimate government..
#29. To: A K A Stone (#28)
That would be a violation of the first amendment.
#30. To: TheFireBert (#26)
"WE (the People) no longer exercise due diligence in choosing a candidate that can represent what we need ..."
#31. To: rlk (#4)
#32. To: misterwhite (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: rlk (#32)
"Its paranoia subjectively justifies any form of hostile acts (in defense of itself) and makes it extremely dangerous."
#34. To: misterwhite (#33)
(Edited)
"Its paranoia subjectively justifies any form of hostile acts (in defense of itself) and makes it extremely dangerous."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]