[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles

Title: Ann Coulter’s Birthday Present From Donald Trump: A Muslim Moratorium
Source: VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ann-c ... nald-trump-a-muslim-moratorium
Published: Dec 10, 2015
Author: Ann Coulter
Post Date: 2015-12-10 12:02:25 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 614
Comments: 6

For my best birthday gift this week, Donald Trump called for blocking Muslim immigration to the United States. If he throws in all immigration, it will be my merriest Christmas ever.

By contrast, the eunuchs running against Trump went mental.

Marco Rubio called Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration “offensive and outlandish.”

Rubio’s idea for stopping Muslim terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is something simple: Launch several wars to clean up the entire Middle East.

Chris Christie called Trump’s plan “ridiculous,” saying, “This is the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about.”

People with “experience” say things like: Walls don’t work and are “too expensive.”

Ted Cruz said he disagreed with Trump and instead would focus on “radical Islamic terrorism.” Cruz will have a lot more radicals to focus on if we keep importing a quarter million Muslims every year.

And these were Republicans. MSNBC acted as if the nation had come under terrorist attack (by a Muslim immigrant) with its round-the-clock, breaking- news coverage of Trump’s proposal, rife with images of dangerous demagogues from George Wallace to Hitler.

People without real arguments call anything they don’t like “racist” or “unconstitutional.”

Trump’s proposal is neither—I won’t waste space mentioning 100 years of constitutional law and practice, but of course our country has absolute authority to decide who gets to immigrate here.

In the 14 years since Muslims killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, this country has admitted another 1.5 million Muslims. So we’re xenophobic, bigoted racists if we don’t make it 2 million? Three million? When will we have enough? How many murdered Americans is an acceptable number before we can shut off the spigot of Muslim immigration?

The amazing thing is that no one (except the American people) wants any pause in Muslim immigration—even after more than a dozen Muslim terrorist attacks on our soil in the last 15 years.

House Speaker Paul Ryan announced that he will refuse to consider cuts to Muslim immigration, saying, “That’s not who we are.”

Republicans are totally copacetic with Pew’s recent finding that white Christians are now a minority in America, but furious with Trump for suggesting we take a break from importing Muslims.

Can we move them to Ryan’s district? According to Pew, only 11 percent of Muslims are Republican or “lean Republican.” They may not make the “best Americans”—as Ryan claims—but at least they’d get rid of him.

The hysterical demand for never-ending Third World immigration has gone beyond the rich’s need for cheap servants and the Democrats’ need for voters. It’s a mass psychosis.

Everyone acts as if Pakistani pushcart operators are the same as American blacks, and we’re required to bring them here to make up for the legacy of slavery.

Foreigners aren’t the descendants of American slaves! The rest of the world does not have a civil right to move here. We’re under no moral imperative to allow any immigration at all. We don’t owe citizens of other countries anything.

But as long as you brought it up: They owe us. America runs around saving other countries from tsunamis, earthquakes, pirates, disease, starvation, warlords, dictators, Nazis, communists—then their citizens show up full of grievances, as if we owe them.

Angry Muslims have been popping up all over TV to denounce Trump and complain about anti-Muslim bigotry in the U.S. If they’d prefer a country with a larger Muslim population and no white devil oppressors, low-rent mud huts are available in any of about 50 Muslim countries around the world. First month free; after that, two goats a month.

In addition to the thoughtful policy objection that Trump is a racist, we’ve been treated to an endless stream of stunningly stupid arguments against Trump’s proposal.

Fox News’ Dana Perino complained that Trump’s policy doesn’t “distinguish the peaceful from the radicals.”

Yeah, nor can our government.

Given the devastation caused by only two Muslims in San Bernardino, eight Muslims in Paris, two at the Boston Marathon, one at a Chattanooga military recruitment center, one at Fort Hood, 19 on 9/11, etc. etc.—it’s really irrelevant whether “most” Muslim immigrants are peaceful little lambs. It doesn’t take a lot of them to create havoc.

I don’t know why we need any.

While it’s fantastic news that most Muslim immigrants aren’t terrorists, as Samuel Johnson said, “A horse who can count to 10 is a remarkable horse, not a remarkable mathematician.”

We want remarkable Americans, not immigrants whose selling point is: “hasn’t blown anything up yet.” What’s the upside of admitting 250,000 poor, culturally backward, non-English-speaking Muslims every year? When are we allowed to talk about what’s good for America?

San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook’s mother described his father—the original immigrant—this way: “My husband is mentally ill and is on medication but is also an alcoholic and drinks with the medicine.”

Fantastic. So glad we got him. The father, who has been here since 1973— thanks, Teddy Kennedy!—told an Italian newspaper that he preached moderation to his son, saying it’s not worth fighting Israel, because Russia, China and the U.S. “don’t want Jews there any more.” In “two years,” he assured his son, “Israel will not exist any more.”

So after four decades in American culture, these highly integrated, model immigrants are still clinging to their insane magic potion fantasies.

The senior Farouk didn’t come here to work in some highly complex technical field, like nuclear physics or cell extraction biology. He’s a truck driver. So one American lost his job as a truck driver and 14 Americans lost their lives because of Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act.

How else have the 1.5 million Muslims admitted since 9/11 made our country better? Their massive welfare use? Overburdening our schools and hospitals? The machete attacks? The clitorectomies? The honor killings? The occasional terrorist attack?

Currently, there are more than a thousand active investigations of ISIS in all 50 states. Here’s an idea: Instead of paying for an ever-expanding federal workforce to track, wiretap and investigate immigrants with possible terrorist sympathies, let’s stop bringing them in!

Beginning to sense the public’s fury, a number of Republican politicians have been trying to talk tough on immigration. This week, Trump proved that that’s all it is: talk.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)

" Instead of paying for an ever-expanding federal workforce to track, wiretap and investigate immigrants with possible terrorist sympathies, let’s stop bringing them in! "

AND, if we do not bring more in, we avoid the possibility that they will attack / kill / maim American citizens!

Pretty much common sense, something that the demonturds, all the do gooders, and the rest of the gop candidates have a serious deficit of !

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton

Stoner  posted on  2015-12-10   12:09:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Stoner (#1)

Pretty much common sense, something that the demonturds, all the do gooders, and the rest of the gop candidates have a serious deficit of !

I remember when they hijacked those planes to the desert of Jordan back in 1970 and blew them up. RINO's and the rest of America's ruling class thought it was a good idea to import these sub-human things into the West.

Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-12-10   12:15:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: nativist nationalist (#0)

The hysterical demand for never-ending Third World immigration has gone beyond the rich’s need for cheap servants and the Democrats’ need for voters. It’s a mass psychosis.

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 !

BorisY  posted on  2015-12-10   12:31:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: BorisY (#3)

DNC - Hamas - isis - black lives matter ... rape - riot - pillage - plunder - sudden jihad syndrome --- what's the difference !

Thanks for the reminder, I almost forgot to post this arcticle abour Hamas.

Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-12-10   12:44:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nativist nationalist (#0)

[Ann Coulter] People without real arguments call anything they don’t like “racist” or “unconstitutional.”

Trump’s proposal is neither—I won’t waste space mentioning 100 years of constitutional law and practice, but of course our country has absolute authority to decide who gets to immigrate here.

I'll waste the space to provide an example of the century plus of constitutional law and practice from the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/698/

Fong Yue Ting v United States, 149 US 698 (1893)

Syllabus

The right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign nation.

In the United States, the power to exclude or to expel aliens is vested in the political departments of the National Government, and is to be regulated by treaty or by act of Congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established, except so far as the Judicial Department is authorized by treaty or by statute, or is required by the Constitution, to intervene.

The power of Congress to expel, like the power to exclude, aliens, or any specified class of aliens, from the country, may be exercised entirely through executive officers; or Congress may call in the aid of the Judiciary to ascertain any contested facts on which an alien's right to remain in the country has been made by Congress to depend.

Congress has the right to provide a system of registration and identification of any class of aliens within the country, and to take all proper means to carry out that system.

The provisions of an act of Congress, passed in the exercise of its constitutional authority, must, if clear and explicit, be upheld by the courts, even in contravention of stipulations in an earlier treaty.

Section 6 of the act of May 5, 1892, c. 60, requiring all Chinese laborers

Page 149 U. S. 699

within the United States at the time of its passage, "and who are entitled to remain in the United States," to apply within a year to a collector of internal revenue for a certificate of residence, and providing that anyone who does not do so, or is afterwards found in the United States without such a certificate, "shall be deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully in the United States," and may be arrested by any officer of the customs, or collector of internal revenue, or marshal, or deputy of either, and taken before a United States judge, who shall order him to be deported from the United States to his own country unless he shall clearly establish to the satisfaction of the judge that, by reason of accident, sickness, or other unavoidable cause, he was unable to procure his certificate, and "by at least one credible white witness" that he was a resident of the United States at the time of the passage of the act, is constitutional and valid.

OPINION of the Court at 705:

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court.

The general principles of public law which lie at the foundation of these cases are clearly established by previous judgments

Page 149 U. S. 705

of this Court, and by the authorities therein referred to.

In the recent case of Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 142 U. S. 659, the Court, in sustaining the action of the Executive Department, putting in force an act of Congress for the exclusion of aliens, said:

"It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. In the United States, this power is vested in the National Government, to which the Constitution has committed the entire control of international relations, in peace as well as in war. It belongs to the political department of the Government, and may be exercised either through treaties made by the President and Senate or through statutes enacted by Congress."

The same views were more fully expounded in the earlier case of Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S. 581, in which the validity of a former act of Congress, excluding Chinese laborers from the United States, under the circumstances therein stated, was affirmed.

In the elaborate opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Field in behalf of the Court, it was said:

"Those laborers are not citizens of the United States; they are aliens. That the Government of the United States, through the action of the Legislative Department, can exclude aliens from its territory, is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens, it would be, to that extent, subject to the control of another power. . . . The United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory."

130 U. S. 130 U.S. 603, 130 U. S. 604.

It was also said, repeating the language of Mr. Justice

Page 149 U. S. 706

Bradley in Knox v. Lee, 12 Wall. 457, 79 U. S. 555:

"The United States is not only a Government, but it is a National Government, and the only Government in this country that has the character of nationality. It is invested with power over all the foreign relations of the country, war, peace, and negotiations and intercourse with other nations; all of which are forbidden to the state governments."

130 U.S. 130 U. S. 605. And it was added:

"For local interests, the several States of the Union exist; but for international purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power."

130 U.S. 130 U. S. 606.

The Court then went on to say:

"To preserve its independence, and give security against foreign aggression and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation; and to attain these ends nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting in its national character, or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us. The Government, possessing the powers which are to be exercised for protection and security, is clothed with authority to determine the occasion on which the powers shall be called forth; and its determination, so far as the subjects affected are concerned, is necessarily conclusive upon all its departments and officers. If, therefore, the Government of the United States, through its Legislative Department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects. The existence of war would render the necessity of the proceeding only more obvious and pressing. The same necessity, in a less pressing degree, may arise when war does not exist, and the same authority which adjudges the necessity in one case must also determine it in the other. In both cases, its determination is conclusive upon the Judiciary. If the Government of the country of which the foreigners excluded are subjects is dissatisfied with this action, it can make complaint to the

Page 149 U. S. 707

executive head of our Government, or resort to any other measure which, in its judgment, its interests or dignity may demand, and there lies its only remedy. The power of the Government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the Executive or Legislative Departments."

130 U.S. 130 U. S. 606-607. This statement was supported by many citations from the diplomatic correspondence of successive Secretaries of State, collected in Whart. Int. Law Dig. § 206.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-12-10   12:44:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: BorisY (#3)

" The hysterical demand for never-ending Third World immigration has gone beyond the rich’s need for cheap servants and the Democrats’ need for voters. It’s a mass psychosis. "

It is thought that that will help facilitate bringing in the NWO.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton

Stoner  posted on  2015-12-10   13:25:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com