Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
USA Today -- This is Bigly.
>> Protests targeted major airports from Los Angeles to Chicago to New York. Other demonstrations were taking place in town squares and smaller airports from Bangor, Maine, to Bloomington, Ind., to Boise.
At San Francisco's airport, hundreds of people choked the international terminal for a second straight day, waving sings that read "Let Them In" and "No Ban No Wall." A phalanx of lawyers lined up to offer free legal aid to refugees affected by the executive order.
Protesters began swarming major airports Saturday. In Chicago, thousands of demonstrators gathered at O'Hare International Airport. In New York, more than 2,000 at John F. Kennedy Airport chanted "Let them in!" At Los Angeles International Airport, 200 protesters, shouted, "No Trump, No KKK, No fascist USA."
In Dallas, Mayor Mike Rawlings on Sunday afternoon met with travelers who had been held at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, handing them bouquets of white roses and telling reporters, "The tide is turning and the sun is rising — and these important visitors to our city are here. We have wished them welcome and we have apologized from the depths of our heart," WFAA-TV reported.
In Virginia, the advocacy group CASA's call for a rally at Dulles International Airport drew dozens of placard-carrying protesters.
“We will not stop until this executive order is canceled and we arrive at common-sense, immigration reform that takes into account the lives of immigrant and refugee families,” CASA Virginia state director Michelle LaRue said.
JFK Airport New York:
Washington:
Copley Square, Boston:
LAX Airport:
Sea-Tac Seattle:
One sign sums it up perfectly:
Christians ≠ KKK
Muslims ≠ ISIS
END OF STORY
This reaction makes one proud. Right on Patriots.
Soros is hemorrhaging money over all these protests.
It is a list of countries that the previous Obama administration and Congress had made. There is no Bigotry (which in the context it is being used basically means hating someone for their nationality, or religion in this particular case) The media over here just lies a lot in order to get ratings esthermoon
The denial is not based on religion, you're spreading a media lie. it is based on the nations that Congress and the previous administration (Obama's administration) found to have the most terrorists.
USA Today -- This is Bigly.
>> Protests targeted major airports from Los Angeles to Chicago to New York. Other demonstrations were taking place in town squares and smaller airports from Bangor, Maine, to Bloomington, Ind., to Boise.
At San Francisco's airport, hundreds of people choked the international terminal for a second straight day, waving sings that read "Let Them In" and "No Ban No Wall." A phalanx of lawyers lined up to offer free legal aid to refugees affected by the executive order.
Protesters began swarming major airports Saturday. In Chicago, thousands of demonstrators gathered at O'Hare International Airport. In New York, more than 2,000 at John F. Kennedy Airport chanted "Let them in!" At Los Angeles International Airport, 200 protesters, shouted, "No Trump, No KKK, No fascist USA."
In Dallas, Mayor Mike Rawlings on Sunday afternoon met with travelers who had been held at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, handing them bouquets of white roses and telling reporters, "The tide is turning and the sun is rising — and these important visitors to our city are here. We have wished them welcome and we have apologized from the depths of our heart," WFAA-TV reported.
In Virginia, the advocacy group CASA's call for a rally at Dulles International Airport drew dozens of placard-carrying protesters.
“We will not stop until this executive order is canceled and we arrive at common-sense, immigration reform that takes into account the lives of immigrant and refugee families,” CASA Virginia state director Michelle LaRue said.
JFK Airport New York:
Washington:
Copley Square, Boston:
LAX Airport:
Sea-Tac Seattle:
One sign sums it up perfectly:
Christians ≠ KKK
Muslims ≠ ISIS
END OF STORY
This reaction makes one proud. Right on Patriots.
It is a list of countries that the previous Obama administration and Congress had made. There is no Bigotry (which in the context it is being used basically means hating someone for their nationality, or religion in this particular case) The media over here just lies a lot in order to get ratings esthermoon
The Media didn't write "bigotry" --- I did.
Y'see, in the article there's one observer who complains "this is racism!". While the emotion is understood, it's not racism, since "Muslim" is not a race. It's religious bigotry. So I corrected the point.
I don't get this. Where does our constitution say that everyone else on the planet, has some sort of right to come to this country, and be a citizen? Where does anything say this?
And if there is no right to be a US citizen, then no rights are violated.
If no rights are violated...... what the heck are you protesting?
the crux is the denial of entry for refugees based on their religion. muslims are denied, whereas christians will not be & in fact, they will be favored. that is unconstitutional.
Where? When you are a citizen, then yes, the government has legal constraints.
I get that. When you are a citizen of the country, then you get the rights granted by the constitution, for citizens.
None of who we are talking about, are citizens. Do you see anyone who wrote our constitution, ever arguing that people in Britain had US citizen rights.... in Britain? No. It's ridiculous.
The constitution clearly says the Federal government has the right to determine the requirements for entering the country.
There is nothing unconstitutional about it. There is no "right to be a US citizen" in the constitution, and thus no rights are being violated.
You claim is false. Try again.
i never said they have a right to be US citizens. i said denying the entry based on religion is. try comprehending.
And as I have pointed out and you continue to ignore, is that it may NOT be unconstitutional.
Guess what, no. Your media lied to you son.
Guess what, no. Your media lied to you son.
guess what, yes. your alternative facts don't fair up very well.
Case Profile
Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
[...]
Case Details
Defendant(s) Trump Management, Inc.
Plaintiff Description U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1975 - n/a
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing No
United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
Post #57 by him is a blatant lie. Trump doesn't have /any/ business interests at all - he resigned from /everything/ in order to serve the American people.
playtime in other words, because of MSM lies we think Trumps a bigot. So ALCU is basing their entire case on media slander, how cute. G'luck to them spinning that to a judge who cannot take slander as truth, and has to rule based on reality.
The denial is not based on religion, you're spreading a media lie. it is based on the nations that Congress and the previous administration (Obama's administration) found to have the most terrorists.
Guess what, no. Your media lied to you son.
guess what, yes. your alternative facts don't fair up very well.
Case Profile
Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
[...]
Case Details
Defendant(s) Trump Management, Inc.
Plaintiff Description U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1975 - n/a
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing No
United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
Moron, they sued all the renters.........it was a shake down....
Guess what, no. Your media lied to you son.
guess what, yes. your alternative facts don't fair up very well.
Case Profile
Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
[...]
Case Details
Defendant(s) Trump Management, Inc.
Plaintiff Description U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1975 - n/a
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing No
United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
Moron, they sued all the renters.........it was a shake down....
your alternative facts don't fair well.
Pogster, now that Mr. Trump is the President of the United States of America, he has all the intelligence info at his disposal what he did not have during the presidential campaign and made blanket statements. He made his EO after evaluating the situation based on those intelligence reports and followed the precedent set by Mr. Obama and Congress on the issue in determining which countries are the most dangerous ones. Your demagoguery defies your intellectualism.The denial is not based on religion, you're spreading a media lie. it is based on the nations that Congress and the previous administration (Obama's administration) found to have the most terrorists.
It isn't huh.
Then was Dumball Rump lying when he said he was going to shut down "Muslims"?
Or is he lying now when he says that's not what he's doing?
Pick one.
I don't get this. Where does our constitution say that everyone else on the planet, has some sort of right to come to this country, and be a citizen? Where does anything say this?
And if there is no right to be a US citizen, then no rights are violated.
If no rights are violated...... what the heck are you protesting?
the crux is the denial of entry for refugees based on their religion. muslims are denied, whereas christians will not be & in fact, they will be favored. that is unconstitutional.
Where? When you are a citizen, then yes, the government has legal constraints.
I get that. When you are a citizen of the country, then you get the rights granted by the constitution, for citizens.
None of who we are talking about, are citizens. Do you see anyone who wrote our constitution, ever arguing that people in Britain had US citizen rights.... in Britain? No. It's ridiculous.
The constitution clearly says the Federal government has the right to determine the requirements for entering the country.
There is nothing unconstitutional about it. There is no "right to be a US citizen" in the constitution, and thus no rights are being violated.
You claim is false. Try again.
i never said they have a right to be US citizens. i said denying the entry based on religion is. try comprehending.
And as I have pointed out and you continue to ignore, is that it may NOT be unconstitutional.
