Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Republican Leadership Speak Out Against Trump’s Proposed Muslim Ban

Republican Leadership Speak Out Against Trump’s Proposed Muslim Ban

“This is not what we stand for.”

Monday, Presidential hopeful Donald Trump called for, “complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

Republican leadership spoke out against Trump’s remarks Tuesday.

“I do not comment on what’s going on in the presidential election; I will take an exception today,” said Speaker Paul Ryan. “This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for and more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”

Speaker Ryan continued:

“Not only are there many Muslims serving in our armed forces, dying for our country, there are Muslims serving right here in the House working everyday to uphold and defend the Constitution. Some of our best and biggest allies in this struggle and fight against radical Islamic terror are Muslims, the vast majority of whom, are peaceful, who believe in pluralism and freedom, democracy, individual rights. I told our members this morning to always strive to live up to our highest ideals, to uphold those principles in the Constitution on which we swear every two years we will defend. That’s why we are here and that’s why we are going to stay here in the People’s House and do the People’s work.

Speaking to the Washington Examiner Tuesday, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus also condemned Trump’s proposed Muslim ban:

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on Tuesday condemned Donald Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States.

“I don’t agree,” Priebus said. “We need to aggressively take on radical Islamic terrorism but not at the expense of our American values.”

It’s bad enough that Trump runs around proposing such absurdities as serious policy solutions, but the consequences are even more aggravating.

We’re already dealing with an unserious administration who thinks the weather is a greater threat than militant Islam. Having Trump on the other end of the seesaw it makes near impossible any substantive conversation on protecting the homeland.

Thankfully (and finally), Republican leadership is vocally righting the ship.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Muslims do not have an inalienable right to immigrate into the United States. Sorry, I don’t see a problem with what Trump said (basically “halt Muslim immigration until the government actually figures out what the hell it’s doing”). The hysteria in response to Trump’s words is pretty amusing, though.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Aitch748. | December 8, 2015 at 3:29 pm

    Trump didn’t say anything about immigration. He was talking about any trips </B to the United States, and vistors actually are more likely to be dangerous.

    He quickly modified it to say anyone already living here could come back (which would mean even after a trip to a war zone)

      Query: Why would we (as a population) want someone, who is of a religion which is KNOWN for it’s many, many verses which state “convert or die” (Islam) to be allowed to travel to a known conflict area, possibly meet with known or unknown individuals which may wish to cause chaos and death in the United States, AND THEN BE ALLOWED TO RETURN?

      That is a form of insanity, and is a recipe for death, destruction and mayhem of the highest order.

    Even Rupert Murdoch thinks Mr. Trump is RIGHT !!

    “Has Trump gone too far? Regardless, public is obsessed on radical Muslim dangers, Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.”

    Has Trump gone too far? Regardless, public is obsessed on radical Muslim dangers, Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) December 8, 2015

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 8, 2015 at 5:34 pm

      “Complete refugee pause to fix vetting makes sense.”

      So he doesn’t “agree” with T-rump at all, because that’s not what Duh Donald said. Well, one of those times he was talking…

      Like with immigration. Poor idjit Gary.

        Rags never has ANYTHING to say one of the most empty voids pretending to be a lawyer when he isn’t so he can try and bully people on LI one could ever have the misfortune to run into.

        Rags is NOT a lawyer. There is never ANYTHING in his posts to indicate his lie about being a lawyer is possibly the truth.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 5:52 pm

        Of course I’m both a lawyer and someone who can read, Gary you stinking liar.

        What Murdoch said and what T-rump proposed are two different things. I mean, if you could read…

        Deal with that.

        Oh, and who packed that talking-point BS up your butt? Tell us, Gary. Don’t be ashamed to name your masters.

          Rags is not a lawyer. He is just a raging clown windbag. His posts speak for themselves as to his intellect and ability to form any sort of argumentation.

          Rags is just an ignorant sl*ut.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 7:09 pm

          Of course I’m both a lawyer and someone who can read, Gary you stinking liar.

          What Murdoch said and what T-rump proposed are two different things. I mean, if you could read…

          Deal with that.

          Oh, and who packed that talking-point BS up your butt? Tell us, Gary. Don’t be ashamed to name your masters.

“Thankfully (and finally), Republican leadership is vocally righting the ship.”

The Republican leadership can go pound salt. Ryan forgets that there has been at least two terrorist attacks by Muslim soldiers on their fellow U.S. soldiers: Nidal Hasan, the fort hood shooter, and Hasan Akbar, who fragged his fellow soldiers in Kuwait in 2003.

We don’t need them here, they have no right to be here, and there is no reason to let them in.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to mrboxty. | December 8, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    Repub leaders seem pretty quick off the mark to solidify Dem talking points. Just sayin’

    I guess Ryan is talking about Rep Ellison (D-MN) when he says his Muslim colleagues are working hard to keep America safe? If so, he’s full of carp because that guy is not working to keep any of us safe.

    gospace in reply to mrboxty. | December 8, 2015 at 5:51 pm

    I’m looking for evidence the GOP elite is ready to unite against Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriends wife, and it doesn’t appear to be there. Though they’re perfectly willing to unite against other Republicans.

G. de La Hoya | December 8, 2015 at 3:02 pm

Speaker Ryan and the rest of the GOP establishment, who the hell are you to create definitions that you want us to live by? Jeb Bush says Trump is “unhinged”. How “unhinged” are you Jeb, Mr. 4%er in the polls, thinking in this reality you have a chance to be elected president? Note to GOP: A shut-off valve is a basic and fundamental construct of protection from future damage.

This is drivel. A far better analysis of this situation is posted on Rush Limbaugh’s website.

“This is not what we stand for.”

I’m sorry, but I’m getting a little tired of that phrase. Obama uses it a lot too. I just keep hearing it in a prissy school-marm voice on that first day of primary school, chiding those who were a little slow in settling down after recess: “We are big boys and girls now, children — this is not how we behave.”

I happen not to be a Trump fan either, but I don’t see where the GOP establishment has earned the moral authority to lecture the base when so many of that same base are only following Trump due to the direct failure of the GOP establishment to take a tougher stand back when it would have made a difference.

Stop speaking to us in crayon, guys. You’re the ones who caused the freaking Trump Train to gather momentum in the first place.

    Wow Amy in FL !! I like it !

    You go girl !! 😉

    Observer in reply to Amy in FL. | December 8, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    Couldn’t agree more.

    I find it particularly galling to be lectured about “who we are” as Americans by a half-breed half-wit who spent decades of his life pretending he’d been born in Kenya, and hanging out with people who routinely expressed sentiments such as “G-d damn Amerikkka,” (Jeremiah Wright) and “I wish I had planted more bombs in the U.S.” (Bill Ayers).

    Why is it that the people with the least understanding of what it means to be American are always the first ones to mouth off to the rest of us about “who we are”?

Lest everyone start hyperventilating over this, what Trump proposes is entirely within the President’s authority. See:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

    And then there is this from Law Professor Eugene Volokh:

    Professor Eric Posner points out:

    The Supreme Court has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants. This is called the plenary power doctrine. The Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to immigration statutes and executive actions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, and political belief, and that they deprive foreign nationals of due process protections. While the Court has not ruled on religious discrimination, it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from the general rule.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/08/banning-muslims-from-entering-the-u-s-is-a-very-bad-idea-but-it-may-be-constitutionally-permissible/

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 8, 2015 at 6:18 pm

      If (a BIG IF) Gary were an honest person, there’d be THIS…

      “Banning Muslims from entering the U.S. is a very bad idea…”

      and

      Posner notes that “The plenary power doctrine is universally loathed by scholars and some have argued that it is effectively a dead letter.” It may well be that, if faced with the issue, the Supreme Court would change the case law on this. But at this point, the precedents counsel in favor of the constitutionality of such a rule.

      2. Posner points out that “blocking American Muslims overseas from entering the country would certainly be unconstitutional.” That is absolutely right: U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to come back to the United States — the government can’t exile citizens even for crimes, much less for having the wrong religion.

      3. Posner also notes that “blocking immigration by Muslims would raise complicated international-law questions.” I don’t know enough about the subject to opine on that, but this is also something to keep in mind.

      4. As a policy matter, I think that banning entry by Muslims would be a very bad idea, for many reasons. But, like many very bad ideas, it might not be unconstitutional.”

        I provided the link to the full article which you used. I’m sure you couldn’t find it on your own. The bottom line is Trump’s plan is constitutional and supported by a 100 years of Supreme Court precedent. Whether the professor agrees with the plan is a personal opinion. His PROFESSIONAL opinion is that Trump’s plan is constitutional and supported by 100 years of Supreme Court precedent.

        Sorry Rags. You LOSE AGAIN.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 8, 2015 at 6:59 pm

          “Posner notes that “’The plenary power doctrine is universally loathed by scholars and some have argued that it is effectively a dead letter.’”

          ***It may well be that, if faced with the issue, the Supreme Court would change the case law on this.***

          But at this point, the precedents counsel in favor of the constitutionality of such a rule.”

          You have a vivid imagination. And no reading ability.

    Milhouse in reply to SAFVet. | December 8, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    Lest everyone start hyperventilating over this, what Trump proposes is entirely within the President’s authority.

    Not with regard to US citizens it isn’t. And that is what he proposed. His official spokesman confirmed it. He can run away from it now if he likes, but he can’t change the past.

    With regard to aliens, yes, it is within his legal authority. It would be unwise, loathsome, and un-American, but lawful.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 9:51 pm

      “It would be unwise” Why is it unwise? I find it wise to restrict those coming into the country to those that share our values, not those that wish to undermine them.

      “It would be loathsome” Why is it loathsome? Is it your opinion that we have to accept anyone? I find the particular values of islam to be loathsome.

      “It would be un-American” How so? We have a long history of restricting immigration to those of our choosing. I find it un-American to advocate bringing in people that favor sharia, that intend to enslave women, murder the apostate, who favor rape of the unbelieving women…

      “It would be lawful” I agree, along with the intelligent thing to do.

    thanks, sorry, I posted this later (hadn’t seen your comment)

    the “president” of a country is SUPPOSED to protect THAT countries CITIZENS

    Immigrants and illegals are NOT “citizens”… they want to come here and promote SHARIA law – then F them… Not wanted.

    #Trump is SPOT ON

I believe the thrust of the speech was that Trump wanted a temporary halt to the immigration/visas. Obama established the precedent himself, when he halted toe 2011 Iraqi refugee program for 6 months in response to terror concerns.

At least Trump has a plan, albeit with no power. Why do Ryan and Rubio plan to do…because they do have some power:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

    The difference is in banning entry based on country of origin, and banning entry based on religion. For a lot of people, that’s a huge difference.

    And his initial claim that this ban would even be applicable to US citizens was totally ridiculous — my dermatologist, born and raised in Florida, is taking her born-and-raised-in-Florida kids to the Great Barrier Reef in Australia this winter… and they’d be banned from re-entering the country of their birth, solely because of their religion? Really?

      The statement I read, on Trump’s website, and the statement I heard, an audio recording of Trump, said that Muslim Americans are not included in his banning of Muslim immigrants (Not sure what his view on visitors is!). Whether a temporary lull or not is another issue.

      Yet, you’re also correct that Trump is skating on very thin ice if that’s his proposal. OTOH: as a point of view and point of discussion, an Ok topic!

        Milhouse in reply to Doug Wright. | December 8, 2015 at 7:49 pm

        His original statement did include Moslmen Americans, and his official spokesman confirmed that he meant “everybody” including Americans. Later denials are a reversal of his position.

      robinkaty in reply to Amy in FL. | December 9, 2015 at 12:14 am

      What about on geo-political leanings, were we wrong or right in banning Nazis while at war with Nazi Germany. Islam is not just a religion it is a political doctrine, just as Nazism, Fascism and Socialism. We were correct not to allow them to immigrate for a time, I think we are right to halt those that follow Islam for a while also.

I’m not a Trump fan, but I guess if Obama can let ’em in, Trump can keep ’em out.

Subotai Bahadur | December 8, 2015 at 3:34 pm

Gotta say it. I know I am going to get downvoted big time.

ONE of the markers watched for by counter-intel profilers when a Muslim undergoes an attack of Sudden Jihadi Syndrome is the sudden appearance of a beard. The Quran calls for males fighting Jihad to have beards. If you have seen the pictures of Syed Farook before he went to Saudi Arabia, and after he returned . . .

NOT repeat NOT saying that Ryan has turned Jihadi. But keep in mind that his political image has always been of a young, clean-cut, baby-faced politician.

For him to come out defending Islam and Islamic immigration after terror attacks by Muslims with the scruffy beard of a wanna-be Jihadi causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance to anyone who is involved with or has studied the counter-Islamic Jihad war.

And it bespeaks a certain lack of situational awareness on behalf of the GOPe. [*shakes head ruefully*]

Let the downvoting begin.

Sammy Finkelman | December 8, 2015 at 3:35 pm

Trump is trying to say something that nobody else will say.

You can most easily achieve that by being wrong

You will get near-unanimous disagreement.

It helps if the more informed you are, the less likely you are to think what he says is agood idea.

Sammy Finkelman | December 8, 2015 at 3:36 pm

Most of the Republican Party is in trouble here because they have already signed on to denying Syrian refugees the right to come, even though they’ve been in de facto quarantine for up to 2 years.

Marco Rubio has said that of 9,999 of them are OK and 1 is not, none should come here.

It’s hard to argue that that same logic should not apply to all Muslims.

Sammy Finkelman | December 8, 2015 at 3:40 pm

You cannot outtrump Trump. And taking a “me-too” , but just a little bit less position isn’t very good for apolitician either.

Cruz is trying to me-too approach, hoping to benefit from any spillover of Trump’s supporters.

Did Ryan lose his razor

Although Trump will sell us out on abortion, I will enjoy his presidency immensely for his ability to piss off the PC police.

glad to see VP Ryan on top of this….oh wait.
maybe its him that needs to rethink policy

Midwest Rhino | December 8, 2015 at 4:10 pm

Allan Wall at Vdare makes some interesting points.

One in response to the Daily Beast’s claim that the Pilgrims were refugees.

I wish Leftists would make up their mind whether the Pilgrim Fathers were genocidal imperialists or oppressed immigrants.

The Pilgrim analogy is a sly trick but of course it’s inaccurate. The Pilgrims arrived as colonists, sponsored and financed by joint-stock corporations. They had no plans to assimilate to the culture of the Wampanoag or any other tribe. After all, they’d already proven their loyalty to Anglo-Saxon culture by refusing to assimilate to Dutch culture.

If anything, this analogy implies the Syrians are coming to colonize us—which may well be accurate.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/memo-from-middle-america-it-is-not-evil-unchristian-and-un-american-to-reject-muslim-refugees

Many Muslims come to the west for freedom, after being tortured by fundamentalists in Iran. But leaving Islam seems more difficult than leaving the torture of communism, as Cruz’s father did. Islam apparently instills a level of guilt even deeper than the white guilt to which many Americans cling. So even the freedom seekers often retain sympathies.

And sure, most are peaceful. But even during WW2, most Americans were peaceful, and most soldiers peacefully supplied the front lines, and the trigger pullers were not fighting most of the time. So even peaceful Muslims can provide the support structure for jihad, as the family of Farook provided.

Certainly more stringent tests for admission are necessary, and making America more Islamic to satisfy the diversity god, is not the role of government.

    Radegunda in reply to Midwest Rhino. | December 8, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    The experience of Europe is instructive. An earlier generation of Muslim immigrants seemed mostly to appreciate escaping the suffocating grip of Islamic culture, and tended to be either nominal or minimally observant Muslims.

    But many of their offspring, lacking real experience of what their parents escaped, have latched onto Islam — pure, strict, orthodox Islam — as the answer to whatever may be unsatisfactory in their lives. Even if few of them are actually violent, many are very pushy in demanding that European society change to suit Islamic rules — so ethnic Europeans have been prosecuted for violating Islamic blasphemy codes under the guise of “hate-speech” laws.

    Even if every Muslim admitted into the country is an honest-to-goodness “moderate,” there is no guarantee that they or their offspring won’t become “radicalized.” There IS a guarantee that more Muslim immigrants means an increasingly Islamized culture and less of what has made Western civilization productive and desirable.

“This is not what we stand for.”

But what is it YOU stand for? I couldn’t really tell in the beat-down you took from Joe Biden as you smiled your diffident boyish smile and rolled over for him. Or as you continue the covert GOPe rollover to your corporate donors and sell out this country for cheap labor (and more terrorists who hate us, flooding in under cover of your “compassionate” delusions and trembling fears of being labeled a racist by the MSM).

Got to hell, Opie.

Is that a new beard growing on Speaker Ryan’s face?

That’s Ryan “righting the ship” for the islamo-republican suckups. Next he’ll start wearing a burqa to “make the Jihadi feel welcome” ’cause “That’s what we are”.

Can’t stand Trump, but when he’s right he’s right.

Trump’s polling is going to hit 40% very soon. Ryan, the GOPe and the media all raving against what is absolutely just plain simple common sense idea. If Trump doesn’t get the nomination the GOP will cease to exist as a national party within 10 years. Maybe within 4 years.

Trump will not exceed 40% nationally.

    Andy in reply to cepenta. | December 8, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    For the record, I hate him. Despite being the only candidate to successfully punch the media in the nose on a daily basis, he will sell conservatives out big time.

    But he will win the primary because Dems will cross lines to vote for him in blue states (Wa, Or, Ca). A lot of Dems like him as much as they hate Hillary- so they will vote in the GOP primary to torpedo Cruz or Rubio.

    Next- he will slaughter Hillary in the general election. This will be for the same reason he’s killing it in the primary; people are fed up.

      Certainly hope you are correct. Anything that puts Trump in the whitehouse.

      Radegunda in reply to Andy. | December 8, 2015 at 8:26 pm

      Trump would never have gotten such cult-like devotion if he weren’t a TV celebrity.

      His fans imagine they’re supporting him on the basis of principles, but then they’re quick to explain away his contradictions and crudeness, and even say there’s nothing he could do or say that would shake their faith in him.

      Deep down, they’re flattering themselves with the idea that a big TV celebrity speaks for them and really cares about them. It’s not much different from Schwarzenegger in California, except that Arnie tended to sound more thoughtful, and he hadn’t recently been a Democrat.

        This post reminds me of the old SNL skits called “Deep Thoughts”. It was good for a bit of a smile at its pretentiousness, but as real life practucal analysis, not so much.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 9, 2015 at 12:30 pm

          This post reminds me of the old SNL skits called “Deep Thoughts”. It was good for a bit of a smile at its pretentiousness, but as real life practical analysis, not so much.

          Well, and evasion of the point and stupid ad hominem.

          But that’s our T-rump sucker all over…!!!

    Trump will hit 40% within 2 weeks. Count on it. Probably sooner.

Well, we got Lyin’ Ryan, the Son of Boehner, and now Squeaker II.

Time to dump Ryan.

The GOPe still doesn’t get it. All they are doing is helping trump. Making it clear trump is their enemy will just increase his support. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all…

“This is not what we stand for.”

We stand a few more San Bernardinos, eh Paul?

This thread had more comment down votes then I’e ever seen before. Hot Topic!

Re: “This is not what we stand for…”

The MSM is trying to use Trump’s statement to paint the whole GOP as anti-muslim bigots.

Paul Ryan is defending the GOP from that attack, not shoring up Democratic talking points.

And, of course, the big winner is Hillary. We *should* be spending this time asking the Democrats whether they still believe that we can safely vet tens of thousands of additional immigrants when we so completely failed to vet Tashfeen Malik. Instead we’re talking about the Donald again.

    Sanddog in reply to clintack. | December 8, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    Ryan doesn’t need to defend the GOP. It’s time to stop playing their game on their terms. Trump said something inflammatory, that’s on Trump. Not Ryan, Bush, Christie or any other idiot republican who felt the need to immediately tuck their tails between their legs and cower.

LOL how Mr. Trump has made the media and establishment wee their pants on this topic. I.Love.It.

Legally, by the way, this is on the books already. Perhaps President Trump will enact it. Islam IS at war with the west … or hadn’t you heard?!?!

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

“(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline. ”

More here, for you legal type: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

#GoDonald
#Trump2016

REUTERS ROLLING: TRUMP 35%, RUBIO 15.3%, CARSON 12.3%, CRUZ 10.2%

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151203-20151208/type/day

http://www.pollheadlines.com/

IA – 2016 GOP Presidential Primary: Donald Trump 33% – Ted Cruz 20% – Marco Rubio 11% – (CNN/ORC 12/07/2015)

NC – 2016 GOP Presidential Primary: Donald Trump 33% – Ted Cruz 16% – Marco Rubio 14% – (PPP 12/08/2015) –

US – 2016 GOP Presidential Primary: Donald Trump 27% – Ted Cruz 17% – Marco Rubio 16% – (Suffolk Univ/USA Today 12/08/2015) –

NH – 2016 GOP Presidential Primary: Donald Trump 32% – Marco Rubio 14% – Ted Cruz 6% – (CNN/WMUR 12/08/2015) –

The media and the left wanted to hold all republicans responsible for Trump’s words so what did the republicans do? They lined up as fast as they could to pile on. Cruz, on the other hand was smart. He simply reiterated that Trump’s plan was not his own. He didn’t join in the big cowardly bash-a-thon the media and left so badly wanted.

Ryan’s looking more and more like the San Bernardino shooter.

For all those Trump dislikers (I hate the word “hate!”), realize that Trump has usually been outspoken and tends not to let the MSM types define his messages; exceptions exist. In that one sense, perhaps only, Trump is doing what Andrew Breitbart did so very well, and Breitbart’s skill at that is what led many of us to support his many efforts; damn, he’s still being missed but then we have to move on. To be sure, Trump needs to work on honing his messages better although his skill at delivering them is quite good, JEB could learn from him; nah, not possible.

The GOPe is all atwitter over Trump’s latest missile and so be it. So, for all those T-Rump dislikers (I’m calling you “guys” out and you know who you are! 😉 ), are you going to stay away from the polls if T-Rump’s the nominee?

If so, shut up afterwards and live with what you’ve done, which would be to elect Ms Hillary the First; just like many bigoted folks did rather than vote for that “Mormon; they must have really wanted the Big “O” dud a second time!”

PBU USA!

Yes, he grew a beard. But he probably shaved his groin.

Squeaker II.

So, travel restrictions based on national origin and other legitimate classifications (i.e. principle, allegiance) is unjustified discrimination?

Well, the quote from Emma Lazarus on the Statute of Liberty is “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
NOTE it does not say anything about those that want to impose their fascist belief system on the country and deny freedom to citizens, as is the case with those that would impose Sharia.

There is nothing wrong with a “pause” in admitting people until they get it together. Along with a refugee program in some protected area of the Middle East, it makes more sense.

A couple immigration laws, I think in the 60s, signed by Democrat President Johnson, and in the 90s?…IANAL…I think both supported more open immigration but also permitted keeping out those that would do us harm.

It is just “Common Sense” to pause to set appropriate measures in place, since clearly they aren’t in place…or aren’t being implemented…to minimize the importation of terrorists and others that would do harm to us, our children and our countrymen.

holdingmynose | December 9, 2015 at 6:33 am

You may change your tune as the jihadis are preparing to cut off your head.

I stand with Trump.
Ryan stands with the establishment and money handlers.
Maybe Ryan and his kind will start a “take home a Muslim today” program..
I can see the idiot Republicans now going overboard to show they are NOT against Muslim immigration and increasing their numbers by the hundreds of thousands..or millions.
By the way, a Muslim woman has a birth rate around 8.1…
American women…2.1

On the bright side, at least we finally know what the Establishment Party stands for.

Sorry to see LI get it so wrong: The President has broad powers to limit immigration based on a number of factors. Jimmy Carter suspended immigration from Iran and expelled large numbers of Iranians from the US based on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

“Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act excludes the admission of supporters of totalitarian ideology: “In general – any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the communist or other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.” [212(a)(3)(D)(i)]

Additionally, under current law the president has the authority to suspend immigration. Under 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens- “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President”:

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President,” states that: ‘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…’

More (from CORNELL UNIVERSITY no less) here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

More:

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/11/islam-by-law-is-prohibited-from-us-immigration-3247356.html

More on Jimmy Carter Here:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/flashback-jimmy-carter-banned-iranians-from-us-deported-iranian-students-during-hostage-crisis/

Donald Trump is much smarter that you think. Never underestimate your adversary.

Sammy Finkelman | December 9, 2015 at 3:36 pm

I was surprised last night to see on the CBS Evening News (and later read in the New York Times) that his beard was real.

Abraham Lincoln also grew a beard before a Predsidential election.

The GOPe stands for something besides lining their pockets?

Almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Note 2/3’s support for Trump’s temporary ban on Muslim immigration despite the pollsters trying everything to talk supportefs out of supporting Trump and 36 hours of non stop media and brain dead GOPe bashing of Trump’s common sense plan.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-09/bloomberg-politics-poll-trump-muslim-ban-proposal

Ryan and the GOPe can be described using the words and insight of Col. Ralph Peters in his description of Obama “TOTAL PUSSIES”.

BTW, Trump polling at 38% in SC AFTER “the ban press release” is UP 8% over prior Fox SC poll…

Read it and weep Ryan you giant dip stick.

When it comes to Ryan and the GOPe cowards who couldn’t wait to run to the microphones and genuflect to the left wing media by denouncing Trump’s very reasonable and limited temporary ban, the words of Col Ralph Peters for President Obama come to mind.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend