The events in Paris are the reason we should NOT take any Muslim refugees from the middle east

[Contumacious]

Then apparently Obozo shouldn't have started his illegal war in Syria, DUMBASS!!!

THAT 'S TRUE.

THE US SUPPLIED ISIS WITH WEAPONS AND $$$$$$$$ BECAUSE THEY WERE PART OF THE SYRIAN RESISTANCE AND ANTI- ASSAD. SO NOW THEY ARE RICH AND MILITARILY POWERFUL THANKS TO THE US TAXPAYERS.


BUT BUSH II, BUSH III, AND ANY OTHER REPUGNANT PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE DONE *********EXACTLY*********THE SAME THING.


.

President Trump would NOT have done that..... But McLame was all for it, as was McGrAmnesty!

Russian airstrikes in Syria 'OK' with Trump

AS THEY SHOULD BE!!!!!...Trump would NOT have given Al Qaeda any money or arms, or is this difficult for you to understand?

he's a typical anti american...jealous and resentful...always rooting for bad things to happen to america so he can gloat and feign superiority...using this horrific mess in paris as a platform to vent and disparage america.

NO.


I AM AN AMERICAN WHO TAKES HIS OATH TO DEFEND AND SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ****ALL ENEMIES" FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC SERIOUSLY.


AN AMERICAN WHO IS A US FIRSTER - AND WHO ONLY SURRENDERS IN FRONT OF EVIDENCE.


.


.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

You people must always remember, Muslims are worse than the average jew and yet jews were kicked out of nearly every European nation. How about a little history and why we must elect Trump so we can expel them from our country. It is the only way to preserve our sovereignty and White European heritage.

__________________
It's not practical to exterminate millions with louse disinfestant or Diesel exhaust.
The best short book on the Holohoax: The Giant With Feet of Clay, free internet book, also available in paperback.
Download PDF Posters: Hitler Was Right / "My spirit will arise from the grave. One day people will see that I was right" / 4 smaller posters on 1 page

BabylonTheGreat
View Public Profile
Send a private message to BabylonTheGreat
Find More Posts by BabylonTheGreat
Add BabylonTheGreat to Your Contacts

 

[Flopper]

Fuck em. If they can't fight for their freedom in their own home country why bring the cowards here.
At the very least NO MALES OVER THE AGE OF 12

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation. Also, federal law prevents the government from asking a person's religious. Lastly, what good would it do? An Islamic terrorist entering this country intending to engage in terrorist activities is certain not going to declare their religion to government.

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation.

That's an interesting claim. Which part of the Constitution?

Assuming we are talking about preventing Muslim from entering the US, Amendment 1.

foreigners have no rights under the Constitution, so the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.

Elimination or limitation of the growth of a religion in the US by the government is going to be a violation of the 1st amendment. In addition to the constitution, federal law prevents the government from collecting any data on a persons religion. Immigration law excludes religion and race as a criteria for immigration. Trying to use religion as a basis for denying enter to the US is just not going to work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fuck em. If they can't fight for their freedom in their own home country why bring the cowards here.
At the very least NO MALES OVER THE AGE OF 12

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation. Also, federal law prevents the government from asking a person's religious. Lastly, what good would it do? An Islamic terrorist entering this country intending to engage in terrorist activities is certain not going to declare their religion to government.

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation.

That's an interesting claim. Which part of the Constitution?

Assuming we are talking about preventing Muslim from entering the US, Amendment 1.

foreigners have no rights under the Constitution, so the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.

Elimination or limitation of the growth of a religion in the US is going to be a violation of the 1st amendment. In addition to constitution, federal law prevents the government from collecting any data on a persons religion. Immigration law excludes religion and race as a criteria for immigration. Trying to use religion as a basis for denying enter to the US is just not going to work.

Elimination or limitation of the growth of a religion in the US is going to be a violation of the 1st amendment.

Stopping new Muslim refugees isn't a violation.

 

[ChrisL]

Fuck em. If they can't fight for their freedom in their own home country why bring the cowards here.
At the very least NO MALES OVER THE AGE OF 12

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation. Also, federal law prevents the government from asking a person's religious. Lastly, what good would it do? An Islamic terrorist entering this country intending to engage in terrorist activities is certain not going to declare their religion to government.

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation.

That's an interesting claim. Which part of the Constitution?

Assuming we are talking about preventing Muslim from entering the US, Amendment 1.

foreigners have no rights under the Constitution, so the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.

Elimination or limitation of the growth of a religion in the US is going to be a violation of the 1st amendment. In addition to constitution, federal law prevents the government from collecting any data on a persons religion. Immigration law excludes religion and race as a criteria for immigration. Trying to use religion as a basis for denying enter to the US is just not going to work.

I don't see why we couldn't make an exception given the circumstances in the ME and all the terror attacks. After all, WE come first. It is our government's responsibility to keep us safe first and foremost.

 

[ChrisL]

These Islamic extremists have declared war on us, so . . . .

 

[Contumacious]

These Islamic extremists have declared war on us, so . . . .

Shalom.

Didn't the Zinouts extremists draw blood first?

How is the Reverend Hagee doing?


.

 

[Flopper]

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation. Also, federal law prevents the government from asking a person's religious. Lastly, what good would it do? An Islamic terrorist entering this country intending to engage in terrorist activities is certain not going to declare their religion to government.

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation.

That's an interesting claim. Which part of the Constitution?

Assuming we are discussing preventing Muslim from entering the US, Amendment 1.

Nope. That only applies to America or people living here. It doesn't apply to foreigners in foreign countries.

You know quite well that is not how SCOTUS would see it. To eliminate or lessen the number of Muslims in the US, would put the government in the position of prohibiting the free exercise of a religion and that is a clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. Even a court packed with conversations would agree.

And just how would SCOTUS ENFORCE a stupid ruling like that if the Executive disagrees... Remember SCOTUS is only 1/3 of the government, and has NO POWER unless the executive agrees and will enforce it, as per the Constitution.... Unusual times, such as this, call for UNUSUAL methods for survival!

If the SCOTUS finds that the president is acting in violation of federal law or the constitution, then the president must yield. If not congress must act because the president is required to execute the law.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation.

That's an interesting claim. Which part of the Constitution?

Assuming we are discussing preventing Muslim from entering the US, Amendment 1.

Nope. That only applies to America or people living here. It doesn't apply to foreigners in foreign countries.

You know quite well that is not how SCOTUS would see it. To eliminate or lessen the number of Muslims in the US, would put the government in the position of prohibiting the free exercise of a religion and that is a clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. Even a court packed with conversations would agree.

And just how would SCOTUS ENFORCE a stupid ruling like that if the Executive disagrees... Remember SCOTUS is only 1/3 of the government, and has NO POWER unless the executive agrees and will enforce it, as per the Constitution.... Unusual times, such as this, call for UNUSUAL methods for survival!

If the SCOTUS finds that the president is acting in violation of federal law or the constitution, then the president must yield. If not congress must act because the president is required to execute the law.

Hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahaha

You are like the Muppets LOST IN SPACEEEEEEEE

 

[ChrisL]

These Islamic extremists have declared war on us, so . . . .

Shalom.

Didn't the Zinouts extremists draw blood first?

How is the Reverend Hagee doing?


.

So now you think I'm Jewish or something? I think most people here know that I'm not a religious person. The Islamic extremists have declared war on America and the other countries that they have a murderous hatred for. Our government has a responsibility to us citizens.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Fuck em. If they can't fight for their freedom in their own home country why bring the cowards here.
At the very least NO MALES OVER THE AGE OF 12

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation. Also, federal law prevents the government from asking a person's religious. Lastly, what good would it do? An Islamic terrorist entering this country intending to engage in terrorist activities is certain not going to declare their religion to government.

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation.

That's an interesting claim. Which part of the Constitution?

Assuming we are talking about preventing Muslim from entering the US, Amendment 1.

foreigners have no rights under the Constitution, so the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.

Elimination or limitation of the growth of a religion in the US by the government is going to be a violation of the 1st amendment. In addition to the constitution, federal law prevents the government from collecting any data on a persons religion. Immigration law excludes religion and race as a criteria for immigration. Trying to use religion as a basis for denying enter to the US is just not going to work.

 

[Gracie]

Fuck em. If they can't fight for their freedom in their own home country why bring the cowards here.
At the very least NO MALES OVER THE AGE OF 12

Problem is...they teach them younger than 12 how to kill westerners. Hating us is part of their lessons from birth.

 

[bripat9643]

Done during WWII with Germans and Japanese, and all that has to be done is declare us under attack!

Wrong! Neither the Japanese nor Germans were confined because of their religious preference.

Replace ETHNIC with RELIGIOUS for CURRENT CONDITIONS... do I have to spell out everything for you?...OR are you just a terrorist sympathizer...I, for one, would not be surprised!

There are about 100 recognized ethnic groups and almost all of them contain Muslims. To make it little more complicated, most people are a combination of ethnic groups. So discriminating basic ethnicity won't work.

We'll do our best!

You can no more legally stop Muslims from entering the country than Catholics, Jews, or Hindus.

That's true. We can stop all of them from entering the country. However, Catholics, Jews, and Hindus don't want to kill us.

 

[bripat9643]

Fuck em. If they can't fight for their freedom in their own home country why bring the cowards here.
At the very least NO MALES OVER THE AGE OF 12

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation. Also, federal law prevents the government from asking a person's religious. Lastly, what good would it do? An Islamic terrorist entering this country intending to engage in terrorist activities is certain not going to declare their religion to government.

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation.

That's an interesting claim. Which part of the Constitution?

Assuming we are discussing preventing Muslim from entering the US, Amendment 1.

Nope. That only applies to America or people living here. It doesn't apply to foreigners in foreign countries.

You know quite well that is not how SCOTUS would see it. To eliminate or lessen the number of Muslims in the US, would put the government in the position of prohibiting the free exercise of a religion and that is a clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. Even a court packed with conversations would agree.

We can reduce the number of Muslims entering the country to zero. Nothing in the Constitution says we can't.

 

[bripat9643]

Replace ETHNIC with RELIGIOUS for CURRENT CONDITIONS... do I have to spell out everything for you?...OR are you just a terrorist sympathizer...I, for one, would not be surprised!

There are about 100 recognized ethnic groups and almost all of them contain Muslims. To make it little more complicated, most people are a combination of ethnic groups. So discriminating basic ethnicity won't work.

We'll do our best!

You can no more legally stop Muslims from entering the country than Catholics, Jews, or Hindus.

You can stop ANYONE from entering this country. Unless of course you live in the land of make believe aka liberaltopia

Try to stop people from entering the country based on their religious beliefs and see how fast the courts say no.

for a case to appear before the Supreme Court it has to have "standing." How does some muzzie savage living in Syria have standing to file a case against the U.S. government?

 

[bripat9643]

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation. Also, federal law prevents the government from asking a person's religious. Lastly, what good would it do? An Islamic terrorist entering this country intending to engage in terrorist activities is certain not going to declare their religion to government.

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation.

That's an interesting claim. Which part of the Constitution?

Assuming we are discussing preventing Muslim from entering the US, Amendment 1.

Nope. That only applies to America or people living here. It doesn't apply to foreigners in foreign countries.

You know quite well that is not how SCOTUS would see it. To eliminate or lessen the number of Muslims in the US, would put the government in the position of prohibiting the free exercise of a religion and that is a clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. Even a court packed with conversations would agree.

And just how would SCOTUS ENFORCE a stupid ruling like that if the Executive disagrees... Remember SCOTUS is only 1/3 of the government, and has NO POWER unless the executive agrees and will enforce it, as per the Constitution.... Unusual times, such as this, call for UNUSUAL methods for survival!

Obama showed that the Administration can ignore the other two branches of government by issuing executive orders.

 

[bripat9643]

There are a couple problems with your suggestion. Denying entrance to US based on religious grounds would clearly be a constitutional violation.

That's an interesting claim. Which part of the Constitution?

Assuming we are discussing preventing Muslim from entering the US, Amendment 1.

Nope. That only applies to America or people living here. It doesn't apply to foreigners in foreign countries.

You know quite well that is not how SCOTUS would see it. To eliminate or lessen the number of Muslims in the US, would put the government in the position of prohibiting the free exercise of a religion and that is a clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. Even a court packed with conversations would agree.

To eliminate or lessen the number of Muslims in the US, would put the government in the position of prohibiting the free exercise of a religion

They're free to exercise their religion, somewhere else.

Yes, they are free to exercise their religious freedom somewhere else but the constitution is not concerned with exercise of religious freedom somewhere else.

It's not concerned with the religious freedom of foreigners.

 

[ninja007]

Fuck em. If they can't fight for their freedom in their own home country why bring the cowards here.
At the very least NO MALES OVER THE AGE OF 12

I got a better idea. Let's just not kill anymore Arab Muslims over there.

As long as we ship all our Muslims over there, you have a deal.

Bet you think Drumpf can and will "build a wall" and import 11 million immediately and at no cost to the US.

RW traitors just don't seem able to think things through.

you have got to be one of the dumbest libs I've ever "met".

 

[bripat9643]

Assuming we are discussing preventing Muslim from entering the US, Amendment 1.

Lol, you liberals have twisted the 1st Amendment all to hell so that Madison himself wouldnt recognize it.

The restrictions on religious tests is to prohibit it being done for federal office holders, later extended by a massive re-interpretation of the 14th.

It has nothing to do with preventing the complete banning of entire religions from the US if we want to.

what would you call banning a religion if not preventing the free exercise of religion?

i doubt even you are so dumb as to believe the united states government can ban a religion

We can certainly stop importing it.