Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims from Entering US – Even American Citizens

Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims from Entering US – Even American Citizens

Ban would include all Muslim immigrants and tourists, and even Muslim-Americans currently abroad

Presidential candidate Donald Trump sucked up all the media oxygen yet again on Monday when his campaign released a statement calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Many on Twitter assumed at first that the statement was a hoax, but it was tweeted by Trump senior adviser Dan Scavino, and then posted on Trump’s website and retweeted by Trump himself, who called it “a very important policy statement on the extraordinary influx of hatred & danger coming into our country.”

Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski confirmed to the Associated Press that the intention was for the ban to apply to “everybody,” including both immigrants and tourists. The Hill asked Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks if this would include Muslim-American citizens who were currently abroad, Hicks replied by email: “Mr. Trump says ‘everyone.'”

Trump also retweeted several tweets from David Brody with the Christian Broadcasting Network that described his proposed Muslim ban as an act of “bravery” that would likely “give him a boost with evangelicals.”

Most were far less supportive of Trump’s idea, with immediate criticism coming from all across the political spectrum denouncing the idea as extreme, even fascist. “One has to wonder what Donald Trump will say next as he ramps up his anti-Muslim bigotry,” Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Post. “Where is there left for him to go? Are we talking internment camps? Are we talking the final solution to the Muslim question? I feel like I’m back in the 1930s.” Politico’s Marc Caputo tweeted that the statement was likely to encourage Stormfronters, referring to the white supremacist website.

Other GOP presidential candidates react

Most of Trump’s competitors in the Republican presidential primary immediately condemned his proposal.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) slammed Trump as “unhinged” and tweeted that Trump’s policy proposals were not serious, putting “policy” in mocking quotes.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) released the following statement, which he also posted on Twitter.

I disagree with Donald Trump’s latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together. The next President better be somebody who can unite our country to face the great challenges of the 21st Century.

“I think Donald Trump’s overreaction is as dangerous as President Obama’s underreaction,” said Carly Fiorina. “President Obama isn’t prepared to do anything, which is clearly foolish, but Donald Trump always plays on everyone’s worst instincts and fears. And saying we’re not going to let a single Muslim into this country is a dangerous overreaction.”

Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) told talk radio host Michael Medved that Trump’s idea was “the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about.” Continued Christie: “We do not need to endorse that type of activity, nor should we. What we need to do is to increase our intelligence capabilities and activity both around the world and in the homeland…We need to cooperate with peaceful Muslim Americans, who want to give us intelligence against those who are radicalized.”

Ben Carson also rejected Trump’s proposal. Carson’s communication manager Doug Watts told The Daily Beast that while all foreign visitors did need to register under existing visa laws before entering the country, “We do not and would not advocate being selective on one’s religion.”

On the other hand, both Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) would only support limited bans based on the risk of the country of origin. In a statement posted Sunday on his campaign website, Cruz called for “an immediate moratorium on refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or ISIS presence.”

Earlier Monday, Paul voiced his support for a restriction on immigration from Middle Eastern countries, in an appearance on Fox Business, according to a tweet by The Intelligence Report host Trish Regan that Paul retweeted:

When pressed for clarification by The Daily Beast’s Olivia Nuzzi, the Paul campaign released a statement touting his national security credentials:

Donald Trump Statement:

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, — Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.” – Donald J. Trump

(added by WAJ) Trump also appeared on Greta to reiterate his position:

This post has been updated to include a statement from Sen. Marco Rubio, to clarify Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul’s reactions, to add Trump’s appearance on Greta, and for brevity.

Follow Sarah Rumpf on Twitter @rumpfshaker.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It seems like Trump is trying to sabotage himself at this point. Maybe he’s trying to pull the ultimate Stephen Colbert on conservatives?

    I know that’s what the likes of Peggy Noonan have been hinting at, saying he looked bored. I knew Trump was the only one who could really stop Trump. I think the real issue is addressing the issues he has raised, not that Trump himself is so perfect or special. He just dared speak about a lot of issues political correctness stopped others from speaking about.

    His immigration proposals attacked areas where the executive branch was abusing its authority on a widespread scale. In contrast, this proposal seems beyond even what Congress could legally pass. No doubt it’s expressed as a negotiating tactic – call for something extreme, work your way down – but it’s still highly unlikely to succeed, even if pushed seriously.

      Peggy Noonan is the female George. Old, out of touch, and establishment nobody well past tgeir sale by date. You can’t go by anything they say.

      As far as legality of Trump’s position it doesn’t require any legislation he could do it by executive order under his executive and commander in chief powers. It has already been done in the past by Roosevelt.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 8, 2015 at 9:10 am

        You don’t just lie, Gary. You lie stupidly.

        Tell us where you get these bullshit talking-points, because you are bright enough to gin them up yourself, weak as they are.

          CloseTheFed in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 10:23 am

          I meant to DOWNvote Ragspiere on this.

          Rags you are an ignorant foul mouthed sl*ut. President Roosevelt made several executive orders regarding immigration of italians and germans as well as severe restrictions on many italians and germans already present in usa including citizens of german and italian decent. Far more draconian measures than Mr. Trump’s rather mild temporary halt to muslim immigration while we figure out a better way to vet these immigrants.

          Here is a tip for you. Just because you are ignorant of many things doesn’t make those who aren’t liars.

          How a disgusting foul mouthed ignorant fool like you ever got any following at all here is mind boggling.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 10:57 am

          Your poor, weak, corrupt “mind” is easily boggled, you lying SOS.

          You evoke FDR? We ALLLLLLLLLLL admire him, right, you puke?

          Hmmm… Help us out here. Didn’t FDR have a declaration of war from Congress?

          But that never made everything he did right OR legal, did it, you T-rump cultist?

          Now, tell us where you get your talking-points. Pretty please.

          We have a declaration of war now. Both ISIS and Al Qaeda have declared war on us. Further the Commander in Chief has a constitutional obligation to protect and defend the country. So lots of authority for Mr. Trump’s plans to protect us.

          “But that never made everything he did right OR legal, did it, you T-rump cultist?”

          Is your complaint that it isn’t right, or that it’s not legal (restricting immigration)?

          Your opinion of what is good or bad or unfeeling is of no importance is of no value. Your opinion on legality would be if well founded. So far, I get the feeling if cruz had made this announcement you would be all for it, but since it is the hated trump, it must be bad.

          Are you saying it is illegal for the POTUS of the USA to restrict immigration on national security grounds?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 11:28 am

          Wow. And you call yourself a lawyer.

          Wut an idiot…!!!

          But a GREAT example of T-rump Humper…!!!

          Barry, Rags is not a lawyer he just pretends to be one on LI. Hence his nonsensical reply to your reasonable and polite question.

          Also, let us not forget that from 1924 through 1964, the USA halted virtually ALL immigration. ALL IMMIGRATION. The reason was so the last immigrate wave could be assimilated. It wouldn’t hurt to do this again. A temporary halt to Muslim immigration so we can sort out the enemy combatants is pretty mild stuff compared to past precedents under Roosevelt and otherwise.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 1:24 pm

          No, Gary, you lying SOS.

          I was responding to your AMAZINGLY stupid, ignorant, and FALSE bullshit about “declared war”.

          I am, most certainly, an attorney, and I’ll happily provide you my State Bar Of Texas number when you provide me your home address, a non-disclosure agreement, and a $10,000 bond. You can use Prof. Jacobson as an intermediary.

          Go for it, honey.

          No Rags you are definitely NOT an attorney. Not even the stupid ones think (if you can call it that), reason (if you can call it that) and construct arguments the way you do. You regularly can’t even tell the difference between your own opinions and a demonstrable fact.

          No Rags you are not an attorney. Just a windbag.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 2:42 pm

          My offer stands, you lying, cowardly sack of shit. Step up!

          I not only AM an attorney, I’m a WAAAAAAAY better attorney than you! The idiot who was going to abuse premises liability tort law the same way gun grabbers try to make manufacturers liable for the acts of criminals. What was SOME kinda stupid!

          Love to punk you like this…!!! LOVE it!

          No Rags, your posts provide no evidence at all that you are a lawyer. You are just a windbag pretending to be something you aren’t here on LI.

          If you are a lawyer then sue me… BITCH. LOL

    ConradCA in reply to healthguyfsu. | December 8, 2015 at 6:22 am

    In WW2 we didn’t allow Nazis to come to the USA. In our war against the evil Islam we shouldn’t allow Muslims to come to the USA.

      MattMusson in reply to ConradCA. | December 8, 2015 at 9:02 am

      “And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight, and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt.”
      Hill Benn – Liberal Member – House of Commons

“Cruz, Paul support Trump’s idea; most other GOP presidential candidates oppose.”

Charitably…bullshit.

Cruz most definitely DOES NOT support T-rump’s loopy notion.

Nor does anyone with a working brain.

As someone observed, T-rump has just become the Obamic straw man.

As Ed Driscoll observed on InstaPundit, T-rump has just stepped on ANOTHER negative news cycle for the Deemocrats.

Way to go, Duh Donald!

    Sarah Rumpf in reply to Ragspierre. | December 7, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    After further consideration, we’ve revised the language, as noted above. But the fact remains that both Cruz and Paul were given ample opportunity to condemn Trump’s proposal and have not done so. (Note: this comment is solely mine and should not be attributed to LI or anyone else here.)

      Cruz is laying low so once he sees if position is popular he can FOLLOW trump (again) and come out like he always thought this was a good idea.

        Really? That’s not how I read Cruz’ position articulated yesterday, as set forth in the article. Yesterday was before today, right?

        ‘In a statement posted Sunday on his campaign website, Cruz called for “an immediate moratorium on refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or ISIS presence.”’

          pesanteur in reply to Rick. | December 7, 2015 at 9:55 pm

          This is what Cruz has said.

          “Well that, that [Trump’s policy] is not my policy. I’ve introduced legislation in the Senate that would put in place a three year moratorium on refugees coming from countries where ISIS or Al Qaeda can control a substantial amount of territory. And the reason is that’s where the threat is coming from,” Cruz said.

          He continued, “I think that’s the approach we should take and we need a commander and chief who is focused on keeping this nation safe. And the way we do so is focusing in particular on radical Islamic terrorism which is exactly what I intend to do.”

          So with Cruz’s proposed legislation and policy, he won’t let muslims come here from Iraq or Syria. But if they go to European Union first, then they can come here no problem. That is pretty damn useless and brain dead if you ask me. Sort of like one of those useless “show” votes Boehner and McConnell were so fond of.

          Seriously, the Cruz plan would be completely useless at accomplishing its intended purpose.

          Trump 2016. He gets it. Even Cruz is a distant second.

          Rick in reply to Rick. | December 7, 2015 at 10:39 pm

          Gary:
          With appropriate respect, I think you have to be brain dead to interpret Cruz’ statement as you do. On the other hand, you may simply be dissembling:

          “But if they go to European Union first, then they can come here no problem.’

          Avraham in reply to Rick. | December 7, 2015 at 10:47 pm

          The way I understand Cruz’s position is that he is applying a country-of-ORIGIN test. There is no religious test—although this is a change from what he said earlier about Christian Yazidi refugees. Also, it is not country of embarkation, but origin. A refugee from a proscribed country coming via the EU would be subject to the moratorium, whereas a Muslim refugee who is a citizen of Australia (for the sake of example, understanding that such may not exist) would not be subject.

        Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | December 7, 2015 at 11:09 pm

        … because nobody else would have any good ideas or do anything worthy if Donald the Great didn’t first show the way — right, Gary?

        Not saying they would come straight through EU to USA. They could stop in EU for 6 months to a year and then come through on regular visa waiver program under Cruz’s plan.

      I take issue with this bizarre notion that politicians have to respond to other politicians’ statements. If Cruz or Rubio or whomever doesn’t advocate for a position, why on earth is it necessary for them to respond to someone else’s position? This is a very dangerous path the right is taking in its doomed-to-failure attempt to be just like the Democrats.

      Do we ever ask Hillary to respond to Bernie’s loopy socialist ramblings? Nope. Do we demand to know if all Democrats think the GOP wants people to “die quickly” per Florida crankpot Grayson? Nope.

      We buy into this completely leftist and completely one-sided notion that anything any Republican says paints with broad brush all Republicans. It’s madness. And, frankly, it’s anti-intellectual, anti even any evidence of thought whatsoever.

      Enough of this lunacy. We get this from the left quite often enough.

      At this point, I fear that we are own worst enemy.

Once again Trump goes where all others fear to tread, and where most Americans already reside. A suspension of immigration during a time of war makes perfect sense. And there is nothing in our history to compare with this vast and sinuous enemy, against which we seem officially clueless. His poll numbers will go up.

Trump did NOT call for American Muslim citizens or legal residents legitimately abroad to be refused re-entry.

Why are you perpetuating misrepresentation.

    Tyrconnell in reply to janitor. | December 7, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski confirmed to the Associated Press that the intention was for the ban to apply to “everybody,” including both immigrants and tourists. The Hill asked Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks if this would include Muslim-American citizens who were currently abroad, Hicks replied by email: “Mr. Trump says ‘everyone.’”

    So everyone isn’t everyone, even though the question was specifically about U.S. citizens. Right.

Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight. We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic. It’s one thing to label Islamic terrorism and radical Islam a problem. It’s another to label all individual Muslims a problem. That’s what this policy does. It’s factually wrong and ethically incomprehensible. Donald Trump has just transformed into the strawman President Obama abused on Sunday night.

So no, this isn’t a good idea. It’s a rotten idea all the way around: legally, ethically, practically. Trump’s supporters need to realize at some point that knee-jerk extreme reactions to events of the day don’t substitute for good judgment. It’s ugly when it’s President Obama looking to grab guns from American citizens without due process, and it’s ugly from Donald Trump. Given the poll numbers, it’s not clear whether Americans will get wise to that truth.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/1668/desperate-trump-drops-ugly-policy-bomb-ban-all-ben-shapiro#pq=szg78U

Yes! Totally dead-on RIGHT…!!!

    This is no different than what all countries do to protect their selves from enemy immigration. We have a long history of doing exactly that, protecting our selves from perceived enemies. It is only during the last several decades we have decided it is “unfair” to restrict immigration to those we want and instead allow invasions.

      Milhouse in reply to Barry. | December 8, 2015 at 6:03 am

      It is not what all countries do. Name a civilized country that has done it.

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 10:39 am

        Uh, the USA. Read some history with respect to our treatment of immigrants from another totalitarian fascist group, the communists, the Nazis. How many germans, Japanese, or Italians were coming to the USA during WW2?

        Islam is not a religion. That it incorporates religion to keep the slaves in line doesn’t make it exempt from our contempt or restrictions.

        Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 11:13 am

        Talk about your false comparisons!

        And, yeah, there were Germans and Italians admitted to the U.S. during WWII, along with refugees from all over Nazi Europe. Not enough, but some.

        Just like emigrates from all over the Communist world during the Cold War.

        And you bigotry regarding Islam as a religion won’t cut the mustard, either, Barry. You can’t dodge the First Amendment that way.

          The bill of rights and first amendment apply to people already here. Noncitizen People outside usa have no usa constitutional rights.

          Moron.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 11:31 am

          YOU would be the MOW-RON, Gary, you lying SOS.

          We are CLEARLY not talking about NON-citizens. We are talking about the “everybody” T-rump was referencing, but you are lying about now.

          Rags: “And, yeah, there were Germans and Italians admitted to the U.S. during WWII, along with refugees from all over Nazi Europe. Not enough, but some.”

          Barry: “How many germans, Japanese, or Italians were coming to the USA during WW2?”

          The answer, of course, is not many and those were well vetted. We did not just let anyone in. Now you say “Not enough, but some”. Why were there not enough? That implies you think we did not let in enough germans, japs, and Italians. Why do you think this?

          After the war is a different story. We let in a lot of refugee’s, partly on the mistaken assumption they would want to return home once stability took place in their countries of origin.

          During the cold war we made some exceptions, primarily Cuban immigrants that were, by law, allowed to stay. This was primarily done to show the effects of a failed communist state in Cuba. We severely restricted the immigration from other communist countries however, not letting in any group in mass like Obama is trying to do now.

          A bigot when it comes to pislam? Damn right I am. They’re right there with every other sub human culture that has murdered millions (tens of, one hundred million +) of innocent human beings. You can disguise it as a religion all you want, it doesn’t fool anyone with common sense. It is what it is, a murderous ideology enslaving its adherents and attempting to enslave the rest.

          That it fools you says a lot.

          You (nor Trump) were talking about usa citizens. Got caught with your head up your arse claiming first amendment violations so you try to change your story.

          Moron.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 1:28 pm

          Just another lie from a lying liar.

          Who lies. Like T-rump.

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 1:45 pm

        Milhouse, on further thought, name a civilized country that didn’t do it. And also, recall, I did say until the last several decades.

    Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | December 7, 2015 at 11:29 pm

    By some accounts, the contribution of Muslims to counterterrorism efforts has been close to zero. This administration is relying on the “mainstream” Islamic organizations, which are actually Muslim Brotherhood fronts, and their main concern is shielding Muslims from scrutiny.

    It sounds nice to distinguish “radical Islam” from regular Islam and moderate Muslims, but we cannot be sure that a “moderate” Muslim won’t turn devout and go jihadi, as Farook did. We also cannot know which other “moderate” Muslims will give cover to jihadis.

    Each act of jihad inspires other Muslims to do the same. Muslims also become emboldened as their numbers grow, and they make more and more demands on us to bend to their rules.

    It isn’t just a tiny minority of radical Muslims who have degraded European cities. It’s the mass immigration of typical Muslims that has done it. More Muslims = more trouble for everyone else.

      CloseTheFed in reply to Radegunda. | December 8, 2015 at 10:30 am

      Exactly. And this is why Geert Wilders, parlimentarian of the Netherlands, and Marine Le Pen, have been advocating for YEARS to end muslim immigration.

      And why Wilders has been under 24/7 guard for 10-12 years.

      “Marked forDeath: Islam’s War Against the West and Me.” By Geert Wilders.

    Aarradin in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 2:20 am

    CIA, just yesterday, were saying they’ve gotten essentially ZERO intelligence from AMERICAN Muslims since 9/11.

    We get even less from “friendly” Muslim countries, or their citizens, overseas.

    The one good source we had – prisoners captured in the war on terror – ended the day Obama took office. His insane determination to free all the GITMO prisoners, while allowing no new prisoners, resulted in a complete halt to the practice of capturing prisoners at all. We have not one place in the world to put them. Since we have no prisons we can put them in, our troops quickly got the message (in crystal clear terms) to stop capturing anyone. We just kill them instead – either on the battlefield or by drone strike.

    No prisoners = no interrogations = no intelligence.

    Skookum in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    “knee-jerk extreme reactions to events of the day don’t substitute for good judgment.”

    For crying out loud, open a book. The US has been experiencing terror attacks from Islamists since 1784. We are long overdue in recognizing the nature of the problem and how to effectively deal with it.

    This is no knee-jerk reaction; this is someone who understands the problem and is finally, at long last, willing to call it out and try to do something about it.

      Ragspierre in reply to Skookum. | December 8, 2015 at 2:58 pm

      See, this is one of those implicit lies.

      How many Muslim terror attacks on American interests OR the homeland were perpetrated prior to say…1960?

      You can TRY to shoe-horn piracy into that, but that’s really disingenuous. Piracy was not particularly religious (unless you are just a flaming bigot).

      YOU open a flucking book, and give us the answer.

First, Americans needs to stop elective abortion and clinical cannibalism (aka “planning”) of millions of American lives annually. Not only does it create a population vacuum, it also serves to debase human life. They are quintessential examples of evolutionary dysfunction and moral insanity.

Second, there are precedents for class selective policies both with current popular and legal culture (e.g. “=”), and past policies in cases of existential threats (e.g. communism, imperialism, illegal immigration). The question is if pro-choice doctrine is legitimate, or if there is sufficient threat to America and her people to justify its application.

Char Char Binks | December 7, 2015 at 8:41 pm

I’m not saying I support such a law, or even that Trump does, but I wouldn’t mind if Jabbar left and never came back.

I’ve got no problem with this. How many Jews are allowed to enter Saudi Arabia? How many Jews and Christians are allowed to enter Mecca? If Muslims can ban people by religion, there’s no impediment to us banning them because of their bad acts. For those who say only a few Muslims commit terroristic acts, well, you put your and your family’s life in that basket. The only difference between a terrorist and a law abiding muslim is time. We are at war. Why should the enemy have access to our country?

    Milhouse in reply to Juba Doobai!. | December 8, 2015 at 6:11 am

    We are not Saudi Arabia. And if we ever become Saudi Arabia then we will deserve to burn.

    The House of Saud doesn’t represent all Moslems, or even most Moslems, or even a substantial minority of Moslems. When Idi Amin expelled the Indians, would that have justified India (or us) in expelling all negroes?!

      ConradCA in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 6:25 am

      We have the absolute right to control who comes to the USA. There is nothing wrong with keeping Muslims out of our country. It’s just like keeping Communists and Nazis out.

        Milhouse in reply to ConradCA. | December 8, 2015 at 6:52 am

        Tell me, are there any circumstances in which we would be justified in denying entry to all negroes, just because we can?

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 10:45 am

          It’s a false comparison. Muslims are not a “race”. As a group, they adhere to a murderous totalitarian fascist ideology. We have an absolute right to keep those people out until we can come up with a method that allows us to sort out the terrorists from the oppressed.

          We have a right to keep out anyone, your sensitivities be damned.

          Skookum in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 3:04 pm

          Enlightenment. The fact that Negroids are, on average, more violent and greater welfare sponges isn’t enough for you? What is the benefit to our current dysgenic path of promoting socially dysfunctional traits?

The name is Dalton…er I mean Trump. The name is Trump..

Trump shows yet again why he is a leader and why he is ahead in the polls. He was speaking to a multi-thousand road house gathering in South Carolina this evening. Great speech. He went over the polling data of Muslims living in this country that show 25% believe violent attacks on Americans is justified. 51% believe sharia law should be implemented in the USA. Etc. Etc.

Once the media and other candidates get done criticizing him, he will rise in the polls even more. He is going to be over 40% soon.

And for you Cruz supporters, don’t worry..once Cruz figures out this is popular he will follow Trump (again) and say he’s been for stopping all Muslim immigration until we can figure out how to vet these people all along. So don’t fret. Eventually, Cruz will follow Trump (again) and you can get in on the fun.

Carson will continue his slide in the polls by coming out against this (he has fallen for the oldest trick in the book… he’s listening to what the media say and taking cues from them). I would say Christie and Fiorina and others will lose ground for coming out against this Trump idea but they don’t have any ground left to lose.

Trump nailed Christie in his speech tonight, calling him out on the bridge and saying there is no way he didn’t know about bridgegate. Also called him out for selling out Romney and the GOP with his big hug of Obama just before the election. Then said Romney showed how dumb he is by going and having dinner with Christie right after Romney lost the election. Said if Christie had done that to him he would have never spoke to the guy again the rest of his life. Trump didn’t mention Fiorina. He won’t do her the favor of giving her any publicity.

I guess we all know now what we will be talking about all the rest of the week.

    Aarradin in reply to Gary Britt. | December 8, 2015 at 2:23 am

    Better analysis than I’ve seen from ANY journalist in the country, including on this blog, on this issue.

    Trump is simply going where the majority of the country has already been for a long time. Its only a shock to the talking heads.

      Thank you, and don’t forget the Patrick Swayze – Road House movie reference with the “The name is Dalton” line. Even laid in a reference to a road house in the body of the post as an additional hint.

      Sorry, I just thought it was appropriate reference for Mr. Trump coming in as the “cooler” to say things and do things that need to be said and need to be done in our PC political “road house” bar.

When we discuss Racism, Sexism, or any other Liberal tendency to divide America and the proposals they create around them… we often reply with “Turn it around…” and ask the reverse. Such as, “What if a Republican had done that… would you still give him a pass?” or “What if instead of advocating special restrictions against Straight Americans, you advocated special restrictions for GAY Americans?” The purpose of the exercise is to remove bias, and examine the policy on it’s own merits.

So.

What if we were to halt all access to the United States to all Christians because of the actions of the Foxborough Baptist crazies? Too much? Okay, maybe we just refuse entry to any and all Baptists… even American Citizens who are on Vacation to the Bahamas. After all, if they are all Baptists, we’re not sure they might not be members of the Foxborough group, or one like it…

Ridiculous? Yeah. But how would that be different?

    Obama already has a ban on Christians immigrating from Muslim countries. He’s let in thousands of Muslims from Syria and about 2 Christians.

    Let’s see: Number of Americans killed since 9/11 by Christian jihadist immigrants = 0. Number of Americans killed by Muslim jihadist immigrants = 4,000+. Number of Christian jihadist immigrant plots to kill Americans stopped before killings = 0. Number of Muslim jihadist immigrant plots to kill Americans = 100s to 1000s. Number of Christian jihadist immigrants under surveillance in this country right now = 0. Number of Muslim jihadist immigrants under surveillance in this country right now = 1000.

    Thus concludes the lesson on ridiculous and hysterical hypotheticals and analogies.

      Milhouse in reply to Gary Britt. | December 8, 2015 at 6:19 am

      Obama already has a ban on Christians immigrating from Muslim countries

      No, he does not. You are deliberately telling a lie, because you think it’s OK to lie about 0bama. Well, it’s not.

        DaMav in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 7:15 am

        Given the extremely low percentage of Christians vs muslims entering the country vs the prevalence in Syria it is obvious that there is already a religious test favoring muslims being admitted. How else can you explain the disproportion?

        I’ve read repeatedly that ~10% of Syria is Christian but less than 2% of refugees entering the US from Syria are Christian. Yet ISIS clearly persecutes Christians at least as much as muslims.

          Milhouse in reply to DaMav. | December 8, 2015 at 5:18 pm

          There is no religious test. That 10% of Syrians may be Xian doesn’t mean 10% of the refugees leaving Syria are Xian, and it certainly doesn’t mean that 10% of the refugees in the UNHCR camps are Xian. For one thing, ISIS doesn’t control all of Syria. For another, there are reports that Xians don’t fare well in the camps, because the Moslem refugees mistreat them, so they either avoid them in the first place or quickly leave. So the proportion of Xians among UNHCR-certified refugees is much smaller than 10%. We should be doing something about that, by setting up alternative means for refugees not in camps to apply, and/or by giving preference to non-Moslems who are suffering persecution in the camps; but failure to engage in such affirmative action is not a religious test, just as failure to engage in racial affirmative action here in the USA is not racism.

        riverlife_callie in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 4:50 pm

        Rush Limbaugh was talking about this issue today. While Obama may not have an explicit ban on Christians, by only allowing in those supposedly oppressed by governments (not by ISIS, Hamas, etc) he can and does exclude Christians.

          This is 1) not true, and also 2) would be irrelevant if it were true. 1) It’s not true that refugees are defined only as those persecuted by governments; 2) if it were, that would not justify the claim that “Obama already has a ban on Christians immigrating from Muslim countries”. So long as the definition was not crafted with the objective of excluding Christians, if Christians happen not to fit the definition that’s not 0bama’s problem, just as it shouldn’t be a university’s or an employer’s problem if objectively set criteria happen to produce a different racial mix than that in the total population.

          The real explanation for why so few Christians qualify as refugees is not that they’re not fleeing a government, but that there are very few of them in UNHCR camps, because the Moslem refugees persecute them there. Which, again, is not 0bama’s fault or problem, and it doesnt’ justify Gary Britt’s lie that 0bama has imposed any sort of ban on them, or any sort of religious test to exclude them.

      Simply put, there is not ONE verse in the entire New Testament (Old Testament != Christian) that commands killing non-believers. You can never say that honestly about the Koran.

    Aarradin in reply to MrMichael. | December 8, 2015 at 2:30 am

    Does Christianity teach, in the Bible, Terrorism, Jihad, the murder of non-believers, and global conquest? No? The Koran does. Have Christian leaders, over the centuries, taught terrorism? No? The Hadiths have. Muslim scholars, from the time of Muhammad until this very day openly support all of the violent passages in the Koran as the direct word of God.

    Have followers of Christianity committed over 27,000 deadly terrorist attacks just since 9/11, and about triple that number in terror attacks where none of the victims perished? No? Muslims have. And they’ve done so based on the clear teachings of their faith.

    When a Christian commits murder, other Christians universally denounce him unequivocally. When a Muslim commits a terrorist attack, we see other Muslims dancing in the streets to celebrate, handing out candies the way they do at weddings. They throw a parade for the “martyr” or, if he’s captured, protest in support of him at his trial.

    Your analogy is absurd in the extreme.

    Trump’s recap of the polls taken of Muslims was entirely correct: The majority support Sharia in the US, which is fundamentally incompatible with our freedoms, our laws, our Constitution, and our economic model. A quarter of Muslim immigrants support violent jihad. When they come here, they do NOT assimilate – they colonize. They live under Sharia even in the US, by taking control of towns and cities and simply ignoring our laws.

      Milhouse in reply to Aarradin. | December 8, 2015 at 6:29 am

      When a Christian commits murder, other Christians universally denounce him unequivocally.

      Not in Nigeria, they don’t. Nor in Israel, when a Christian Arab murders a Jew, or assists in such murder. George Habash, Bishop Capucci, Wadie Haddad, etc.

    Milhouse in reply to MrMichael. | December 8, 2015 at 6:17 am

    The Phelps family are not Baptists. They have no connection with any Baptist association, or any other kind of Xian association. There is no reason to call them Baptists just because they say so. If they called themselves giraffes would you call them that too?!

I’ve read 18 books on the history, beliefs and practices of Muslims. I am surprised at how downright IGNORANT so many of you cuckservatives really are. Mohammed declared “war on all mankind” at the Second Pledge of Aquaba. Muslims are COMMANDED to kill infidels in unending jihad until all the world is Muslim and under Sharia law. Islam is a dangerous and deadly death cult, and is completely incompatible with western values. Those who do not die in jihad have only 1 in 1,000 chance of going to Muslim heaven. Muslims KILL PEOPLE, and the killing is an integral part of their religion. Trump is absolutely right!

    There’s an elderly man down the block who owns my neighborhood deli. He’s a Muslim from Egypt and have been a naturalized US citizen…for over 30 years.

    What does the 18 books that you have read say you should do to him?
    Confiscate his property? Incarcerate him?

    “I am surprised at how downright IGNORANT so many of you cuckservatives really are.”

    I’ve debated Islamofascists and Islamophiles quoting chapter and verse from the Quran. Not difficult when I used to memorize chapter and verse from the Bible.

    I learned about the history of Islam from reading the Quran and from an Israeli professor of history. I did it without having to read 18 books or call LI readers ‘cuckservative’.

    I would recommend a 19th book since you are at ease with the idea of suspending the 1st amendment to suit the situation. “Executive Order 9066”

    Aarradin in reply to Stogie. | December 8, 2015 at 2:33 am

    Absolutely correct.

    Islam was founded by a Warlord for the purpose of attracting followers to help him conquer.

    The results should not be a surprise to anyone.

    If you read the Koran and follow its teachings, read the Hadiths and follow their teachings, you behave as ISIS has. And Boko Haram, and Al Shabaab and all the rest.

    Like most religions, many are just in it culturally and don’t really follow its dictates. But, those that do, support violent conquest – and will do so until Islam controls the whole world.

    Milhouse in reply to Stogie. | December 8, 2015 at 6:32 am

    You’ve read 18 books, all by the same paranoid nutcases. How many of them had pictures?

Bush wants to ignore or deny the problem. Obama wants to blame Americans, kill millions of politically incorrect Muslims (e.g. nationalists), Christians, etc., and, apparently, Americans, too. Trump wants to address the problem directly, and confront several thousand years of prejudice. Perhaps principles matter. Devout Muslims are not pro-choice. Also, they are still fighting sectarian wars of reformation. There is no peace in their land without a strong left-wing regime to suppress liberty.

Well said Gary Britt.

Why should we be surprised that the word “BAN” is uttered with such ease by a crony capitalist who shares the autocratic nature of the Democrats whom he used to patronize?

Has there ever been a Trump quote that demonstrates his knowledge and appreciation of the Madisonian Model?

“until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Is that part of the original statement or added on afterward?

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!” Barry Goldwater… for which he is attacked BUT the next immediate sentence is omitted…

“And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” How soon forgotten…..

So… on Trump … what is it?

War is hell – and we’re at war.
Deal with it.
Trump says what no one else has the stones to say.

” . . . Though President Barack Obama claimed that America must “enlist Muslim communities” to combat terrorism in his Sunday evening Oval Office address, former FBI Counterterrorism Agent John Guandolo said on Monday’s Breitbart News Daily that since 9/11, “we collectively have received nearly zero help from the Muslim Community.”
http://www.weaselzippers.us/244205-former-fbi-counterterrorism-agent-weve-received-virtually-zero-help-from-u-s-muslim-community/

Muslims have proven themselves unworthy of blind trust.

Agree 100%.

3,110 Americans have been killed by Muslims in America in 82 terror attacks (and Islam-related honor killings) since 1972. That’s here, within our borders.

Since 9/11 there have been 89 killed by Muslims in America in 47 attacks.

Don’t believe me? Check out http://www.thereligionofpeace.com and see for yourself.

Donald Trump may be from the east coast but he knows what resonates here in flyover country.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to The Old Radio Cat. | December 9, 2015 at 2:34 am

    That’s about 72 per year. The jihadis should do their training in South Chicago instead of the A-rab desert. The Chicago body count is just short of 500 for 2015 but the year isn’t out yet.

    🙂

I find it rather odd that so many Americans think Americans cannot decide who comes to America and who doesn’t. We should be able to apply any test we want, for our own reasons. When a large group of people are at war with us, why on earth would you let them in? We are not responsible for the welfare of everyone on this damn planet. We are not required to let everyone in that wants to come. We damn sure do not have to let a large number of people in when we know a significant number of them will be inserted terrorists.

    Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | December 8, 2015 at 1:22 am

    You’re talking the Cruz proposal, not the T-rump stupidity.

      “You’re talking the Cruz proposal…”

      No, I’m not. Only the suicidal think letting in any and all from the ME is smart at this point in time. And, we do not have to allow anyone into this country.

      “…including me, will be helping people vindicate their First Amendment rights in court.”

      Are you saying refugee’s refused entry and not currently in this country have first amendment rights? Or any other US constitutional rights?
      Perhaps I’m missing what you are saying here.

      Why don’t you stick to what trump said instead of making up shit about denying re-entry of Americans working in ME oil fields? At least then we might take you seriously.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | December 8, 2015 at 8:30 am

        “Are you saying refugee’s refused entry and not currently in this country have first amendment rights?”

        No. And don’t be SO stupid, huh?

          “Perhaps I’m missing what you are saying here.”

          As I said…

          Perhaps I’m too stupid to divine what you’re comment, below, meant. Whose first amendment rights were you referencing? Just so I can understand your thinking.

Not only is the T-rump madness wrong, it’s stupidly wrong.

First, the San Bardoo jihadi and Major Murderer of Ft Hood were both home grown. The major was in the freaking Army.

Second, T-rump can’t legally do what he is bloviating about.

It gives me a very warm feeling to know that people like me, including me, will be helping people vindicate their First Amendment rights in court. ‘Cause, see, I believe in the Constitution. Contrary to you Tree Ape assholes.

Heh…!!!

    Aarradin in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 2:45 am

    Actually, were he POTUS, he absolutely would have that authority.

    Funny to see Liberals who, just yesterday, were gloating over the fact that the POTUS’ discretion in immigration and refugees trumps States that don’t want Muslims “settled” within their borders, and trumps also Congressional authority under current law (they’d have to pass a specific law barring what Obama’s doing, and what Trump is proposing, to stop it) now suddenly claiming POTUS has no such authority. Can’t have it both ways.

    “home grown” – First, NO the San Bernadino jihadi was absolutely NOT home-grown. The wife even less so – came here on a “fiancee visa” very recently. More to the point – home grown Muslim Terrorists support Trump’s position even more: The problem is Islam. The more Muslims we have here, the more terrorist attacks we’ll have here. 2nd, 3rd generation Muslims are as bad, or worse, than the original immigrant (that may have legitimately loved this country). Problem is, the next generation is Muslim too, read the Koran and its teachings, support Sharia and violent jihad, and some of them act on those teachings. Which is why we should permanently bar all Muslim immigration to the US. Sharia is fundamentally incompatible with our system of government and our freedoms, and they’ll NEVER rest until they turn the US into a Sharia compliant Muslim craphole.

    Over 50% of Muslims currently in America support Sharia. Over 25% of Muslims currently in America openly support violent jihad. Virtually all of them support Mosques and schools that teach Sharia and violent jihad.

    ” First Amendment rights in court.” Wow, that’s stupid. Incredibly so. The federal government has complete discretion on whom to allow to enter this country as an immigrant or a visitor. Period. Current law already has a religious test – its been in place for as long as we’ve had any restriction on immigration. There’s nothing illegal, and certainly nothing Un-Constitutional about it.

    Number of Liberals that support, or even understand, the 1st Amendment: Still Zero.

All you who say Trump’s proposal is stupid, bigoted, unAmerican–consider this:

Farook was an American citizen, born in Chicago.

He left the U.S. and traveled to Saudi Arabia. Then he came back and a few months later killed Americans.

Trump’s proposed policy would have prevented the San Bernardino massacre.

Can any of you say the same about any proposals YOU might have? Or is your only proposal to dump on Trump?

    Ragspierre in reply to mariner. | December 8, 2015 at 1:38 am

    I’ve known quite a number of people who have worked in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia for years on end.

    Are you proposing to BAN them from return to the U.S.?

    Or is it just nominal Muslims? See, that’s just UN-flucking-constitutional.

      Aarradin in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 4:15 am

      Didn’t he also go to Pakistan and “study” at the world’s most radical mosque?

      What’s your position on the legislation Senate R’s have introduced to strip citizenship from people that openly support our mortal enemies?

        Milhouse in reply to Aarradin. | December 8, 2015 at 6:41 am

        It’s blatantly unconstitutional. US citizenship is a right, not a privilege, and it can’t be removed without the person’s consent. The 14th amendment says that anyone born in the USA (to parents who don’t have diplomatic immunity from our laws) or lawfully naturalized is a citizen; no law can change that.

      Were they followers of Islam? Because that’s the pre-condition.

    Milhouse in reply to mariner. | December 8, 2015 at 6:43 am

    If that’s what it would have taken to prevent the massacre then the massacre should not have been prevented. Our constitutional liberties are worth more than 14 lives. We’ve shed thousands of times that many lives to maintain them.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 11:01 am

      Oh, bullshit. Our constitutional liberties are not threatened by restricting immigration from a group of barbarians.

      Our constitutional liberties are threatened by having a group of barbarians running around the country murdering people. Our free and open society makes it easy for the hell bent to murder at will. If you want to lose that free and open society just let more terrorists in. That will result in losing what you value.

      There is no loss of liberty involved with keeping terrorists out, even when it also keeps out some non terrorists. We have the right to choose who we want to allow in.

        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | December 8, 2015 at 5:43 pm

        Our constitutional liberties include the right of all citizens to enter the USA at will. Mariner claimed infringing that liberty would have prevented the SB massacre; I say that even if that’s true it wouldn’t be worth it. Our liberty is worth more than 14 lives, or 14,000.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 8:03 pm

          I agree any American citizen can return at will. And we can inter and investigate the person.

          After all, you are all for the Lynch mis-justice department investigating speech, so you should have no problem investigating possible terrorists returning from training. And it is perfectly constitutional to inter someone considered a threat.

          You’re misunderstanding regarding the effects of terrorism is common. If, as you say, we have 14,000 deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorists, you can kiss the liberty you speak of good bye. That is why we must stop the terrorists from getting here in the first place. They have no right to be here. No non citizen, terrorist or not, has a right to be here. They come only as we allow.

          Besides, I heard they all want to play music on public transport. You should be all in on arresting them.

He can’t do anything about American citizens re-entering, at least not without Congressional legislation that would strip them of citizenship after a court determined they were actively supporting a designated Terrorist organization.

As for the rest – the majority of Americans support this unequivocally.

Want to stop Muslim Terror attacks in the US? Prevent them migrating here in the first place. As for the tourist / student visas – Visa overstays are a HUGE problem that the feds do nothing about. Many (most) of the 9/11 terrorists were here on temporary Visas like this.

France is the new Lebanon, after allowing decades of Muslim immigration. The UK is almost as bad. Parts of the US like Dearborn, MI, Paterson, NJ, parts of Minneapolis, etc, are already “no-go zones” for state & federal authorities – they are essentially Sharia-run colonies.

The US is, so far, nowhere near as bad as France, but that’s only because France is 10% Muslim now while the US has only a few million Muslims out of 330 million total population. That’s going to change SOON unless Trump’s policy is implemented. We’re on a trajectory for another 6.5 million Muslim immigrants before the next POTUS leaves office. Given their birth rate, and complete refusal to assimilate, followed by increasing aggression as their population increases and its clear that this is by FAR our greatest threat to national security.

    Milhouse in reply to Aarradin. | December 8, 2015 at 6:45 am

    He can’t do anything about American citizens re-entering, at least not without Congressional legislation that would strip them of citizenship after a court determined they were actively supporting a designated Terrorist organization.

    He can’t do it with such legislation either. Congress has no authority to strip anyone of citizenship, no matter what they’ve done.

    clafoutis in reply to Aarradin. | December 8, 2015 at 9:22 am

    One more time: “Immigration without assimilation is invasion.”

Moving the “Overton Window” – that’s what Trump is doing.

He’s overreached only in including American citizens.

Most of America already supports this position. Its just that its been impossible to talk about on a national level because of the Left’s near-monopoly on media.

Remember, it wasn’t that long ago when Trump’s comments on our southern border were “insane” and “outside the bounds of civil conversation”. Now, its mainstream and has majority support in poll after poll.

Want to know what’s radical? Obama’s Syrian “refugee” plan – its polling at 12% in California. Only the extreme radical Left supports Muslim immigration to the US. Everyone else recognizes it as national suicide.

    Ragspierre in reply to Aarradin. | December 8, 2015 at 9:31 am

    People with working brains recognize BOTH extremes as national suicide.

    T-rump and Barracula are just two sides of the same constitution-hating coin.

      Only one extreme is suicidal. The other just makes you feel uncomfortable.

      There is absolutely nothing suicidal about keeping out people who are terrorists, support terrorism, are sympathetic to the aims of the terrorists, that do not wish for freedom and democracy. You’re more worried about the few “refugee’s” that “might” be good people than you are the good people in this country. All because it makes you feel icky.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | December 8, 2015 at 11:24 am

        Nope, Barry, and that’s a stupid lie.

        One of several you’ve told on this thread.

        If we want to halt all immigration for a while, that is MORE supportable (though it likely violates several treaties, but, hey, who cares about the law, right?).

        You’re willing to lie about what T-rump DID say respecting “everybody” Muslim, just to rationalize a totally indefensible position. AND you’re willing to give Duh Donald power over the constitutional limits we deplore in Obama.

        Damn shame. Me? I’ll take the Bill of Rights, thanks.

          You constantly lie whenever it involves anything trump. Nothing I have said is a lie, and you know it.

          You use the word lie to cover up your inability to form any cogent argument.

          I, of course, have not made ANY comment regarding what trump said or did not say with respect to “everybody”.

          I have said it is entirely permissible, constitutionally permissible, for the USA to restrict immigration to suit its own purpose. You’ve made no argument or cited any law to contravene that statement. You make vague references to the constitution, the bill of rights, treaties, and the like, as though that is some sort of persuasive argument.

          It’s just more anti trump bullshit.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 1:05 pm

          “I find it rather odd that so many Americans think Americans cannot decide who comes to America and who doesn’t.”

          Which, of course, is the implicit lie you’ve been telling with each post. T-rump said “EVERYBODY”. Now, as predicted, he’s doing his usual fraudster tap-dance, running backwards.

          I never lie. Nothing I’ve said about T=rump is a “lie”.

          You’ve become just another lying SOS T-rump sucker, and boring.

          If you doubt anything I’ve said about the law, Constitution, or treaties, refute it, bitch.

          “You’re willing to lie about what T-rump DID say respecting “everybody” Muslim, just to rationalize a totally indefensible position.”

          You pile one lie on top of another. After searching you now know I never said anything remotely like that. So, you stretch out and tell another whopper. Saying Americans have a right to decide who it allows to immigrate to this country is hardly a reference to what trump said or didn’t say, or what he meant by it.

          “AND you’re willing to give Duh Donald power over the constitutional limits we deplore in Obama.”

          What precisely are the constitutional limits on the POTUS with respect to our immigration law? I know the constitution is so vague on immigration as to make this a difficult question. But since you make the claim, let’s see what you got. Maybe you can make up another lie.

          “If you doubt anything I’ve said about the law, Constitution, or treaties, refute it, bitch.”

          You haven’t said anything about “the law, Constitution, or treaties”, ignorant bastard.

          All you do is use the word “lie”.

          Rags:
          “You don’t just lie, Gary. You lie stupidly

          Your poor, weak, corrupt “mind” is easily boggled, you lying SOS.

          No, Gary, you lying SOS.

          Just another lie from a lying liar.

          Who lies. Like T-rump.

          Nope, Barry, and that’s a stupid lie.

          One of several you’ve told on this thread.

          Which, of course, is the implicit lie you’ve been telling with each post.

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | December 8, 2015 at 6:11 pm

          Violatin treaties isn’t a problem; treaties rank equal with statutes, and the rule for resolving conflicts between statutes is that the later one prevails. So in principle if Congress passes a statute that contradicts an earlier treaty then the treaty is overridden, exactly as an earlier statute would be.

          (In practise there’s a RFRA-like rule in place that says if Congress doesn’t explicitly say that it’s aware of the conflict with the treaty and intends to override it, and there’s some way of interpreting the statute that won’t conflict with the treaty, then the courts must interpret it that way. So if Congress were to implement this proposal it would have to explicitly say something like “notwithstanding any previous law or treaty to the contrary”. But it can do that, so not a problem.)

I can’t see this hurting Trump.

Unfortunately, people want simple answers to complex problems. It’s not really a whole lot different than the left calling for gun bans every time some jackass shoots into a crowd of people.

    amwick in reply to Sanddog. | December 8, 2015 at 7:53 am

    Yes, simple answers, absolutely. However, I think there is something deeper to it. People want ACTION, or at least a plan of ACTION, beyond PC hand-wringing.

    BTW DT just said on GMA that Muslims who are US Citizens could travel and return. 7:07 Eastern time. He was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos.

      Milhouse in reply to amwick. | December 8, 2015 at 5:49 pm

      If true, that represents a change in his original position, which was confirmed by his official authorized spokesman.

    Estragon in reply to Sanddog. | December 8, 2015 at 8:44 am

    Not with his core support, to be sure. They have become a cult, like Moonies, and no amount of detail on the Rev’s activities will make them blink. Notice how they hold every opponent to every past mistake or association – Rubio with the Gang of 8 & Bush’s picture with an intern made them forever tainted, for example – while NONE of Trump’s own record is considered relevant. They only hear the last thing he said, carefully crafted to be what they want to hear.

    And a portion of them are white supremacists – their sites are the source of the “cuckservative” term – who are salivating at the prospect of “rounding them up & sending them home,” like the good ol’ days for them. And they never intended to stop with Mexicans.

Now I’m angry.

I’m hearing from personal friends of mine that a key aspect of this post – “Even American Citizens” – is a gross distortion and has no resemblance to what Donald Trump said.

That is the difference between something potentially legal, though not necessarily wise, and something so fantastically illegal and unconstitutional that it could only be something other than a complete perversion of the rule of law if civilization was collapsing like after an EMP blast covering the entire continent.

So yeah, this isn’t a small detail. I came to Legal Insurrection early in my reading routine having missed several hours of news, read this, and trusted it, and I think that trust may have been badly misplaced in this instance.

    Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | December 8, 2015 at 6:49 am

    Trump’s official spokeswoman confirmed that this is what he said and what he meant. She speaks for him, your friends don’t.

Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Post. “Where is there left for him to go? Are we talking internment camps? Are we talking the final solution to the Muslim question? I feel like I’m back in the 1930s.”

Not quite. Until now Hooper felt quite good about the 1930s, and would have liked to have lived then. But he always imagined himself as a concentration camp guard, not as an inmate. Now he says he’s feeling like he’s back there but on the wrong end of the whip. Like David Duke finding himself in the 1830s, as a slave.

Don’t forget that the people who wrote and ratified the first amendment were familiar with Islam, and had it in mind as one of the religions they intended to protect. “The Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

    CloseTheFed in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 11:00 am

    Wrong. They were so unfamiliar, Jefferson had to obtain a copy of the koran to understand them, when he sent the Marines to Tripoli to make it safe for our ships.

    Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2015 at 11:12 am

    Protecting religion practiced within the laws of this country has nothing to so with restricting immigration from a group of known terrorists.

This website is amazing. The coverage unsurpassed. The analysis is beyond reproach.

But the commenters are fucking IDIOTS. Backing blocking reentry of US citizens? LEGAL Insurrection. LEGAL. That’s not legal, and never will be.

    Barry in reply to cepenta. | December 8, 2015 at 11:20 am

    Just so we’re all clear on your opinion, for a US citizen that travels to Syria to train with ISIS, then wants to return here, you’re all for just letting them back in. Is that what you are saying?

    Sanddog in reply to cepenta. | December 8, 2015 at 11:48 am

    Is mass data collection on citizens by the NSA legal? Is a secret terrorist watch list that can deprive citizens of legal rights with no due process legal? Is forcing Christians to violate their beliefs or be punished in the name of equality legal?

    Why do you believe Trump supporters give a rat’s ass about non-citizen Muslims? The barn door is already open. Don’t express outrage when the horses all decide to bolt.

      Barry in reply to Sanddog. | December 8, 2015 at 12:04 pm

      “Why do you believe Trump supporters give a rat’s ass about non-citizen Muslims? ”

      Why do you believe only trump supporters think it a good idea to restrict immigration to terrorists in the guise of refugee’s?

Take a short sweeeeeet break to listen to Ralph Peter’s epic take on Obama’s speech. It’ll put a smile on your lips and a song in your heart!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfzSlldIUHQ

4839 upvotes; 395 downvotes

Paul In Sweden | December 8, 2015 at 11:24 am

“Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) told talk radio host Michael Medved that Trump’s idea was “the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about.”

No Gov.Krispy Kreme of New Jersey, future POTUS Trump knows how to maximize the 140 character limit for the twits on twitter to simplify and broaden his message.

As a child if I came close to my home after swimming in a disease infested cesspool I would not be allowed in the house before I was blasted down with a garden hose, before being allowed into the bathtub to be scrubbed with homemade lye based soap. Even after that it would be unlikely that I would be allowed to sit on the furniture for quite some time. Why in the world would LEFTISTS think that after vacationing at a terrorist training camp that I would not need supervision, detention, inspection and disinfection?

At this point in time, I view anyone tarred by the far left as RACIST as just meaning this person is RACIST and Does NOT adhere to OUR MANTRA of INSANITY.

Country X has a population composed primarily of individuals and militant groups that are RACISTS, HOMOPHOBES, SECTARIANISTS, BIGOTS, MISOGYNISTS, RAPISTS, MURDERERS AND MENTAL CASES which are opposed to free speech, free assembly and especially freedom of the press and the very breath of every westerner. — for sake of convenience and perspective let us refer to country X as SYRIA.

So this country X, SYRIA, with a population composed primarily of individuals and militant groups that are RACISTS, HOMOPHOBES, SECTARIANISTS, BIGOTS, MISOGYNISTS, RAPISTS, MURDERERS AND MENTAL CASES which are opposed to free speech, free assembly and especially freedom of the press and the very breath of every westerner has a civil war. Leftists in the civilized world say to the sane people in the civilized world that these two, three, four, six, eighteen… groups of people from this nation of people that are against everything we believe in are fighting with each other in their country and it would be a great idea if we relocated each of these warring groups into our own communities with free housing, medical, welfare and pensions so that they can continue their hostility against each other and more readily kill myself, my family, my friends and members of my community.

NO!

If you are a refugee from a country, you do not go for family vacations from the EU or the USA to the very same country you claim to have fled.

How can we forget the Iconic photo of the dead Syrian boy on the beach. The boy of the human trafficker that lived and worked in Turkey before fleeing to Greece so he could get free dental care in Sweden, a service that I, my wife, my family and every Swedish citizen must pay. He fled from Turkey, a country that I weekly here in Sweden have my mail slot stuffed with travel packages for travel in Turkey.

The human trafficker and his Iconic Photo Boy, took the bodies of his Photo Boy, his other child and his wife back to Country X(Syria) to his home town, the place he fled from after living in Turkey(a place I am solicited to vacation) so that he with his older brother why by coincidence still lives in his home town and remains prosperous could bury his family.

No Gov. Krispy of New Jersey, future POTUS Trump simplifying a message causes me no problems because his terse character sound bite limited words reached the simplified masses. Schools and Businesses do not exist for the sole benefit of the advancement of union bosses and GOVERNMENT does not exist for the benefit of fat assed career politicians like Gov. Krispy Kreme of New Jersey.

Let’s get down to the real facts. 99 % of the legal Immigrants that Obama has brought in are Muslim and unskilled workers. They all are immediately sign up for all Welfare programs. He won’t let in ” Real Immigrants,” who are being killed or attacked. He is trying to get enough Muslims in here who get exempted from Gov. programs that aren’t free or that they don’t like. They are here to NOT assimilate. They are INVADERS.

Poor rags, with all your proclamations that Cruz would not have anything to do with trump:

“I’d hire Donald Trump to negotiate trade deals”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/exclusive-ted-cruz-id-hire-donald-trump-negotiate-trade-deals/

Maybe A President Donald would hire Cruz as AG. Maybe Cruz would accept.

    Cruz also said he would hire Trump to build the WALL.

    Cruz is a crafty politician. Just not the LEADER that Trump is. But if he studies under Trump for 4 to 8 years he could learn to be a better leader. Not there yet compared to Mr. Trump.

      Sanddog in reply to Gary Britt. | December 8, 2015 at 11:02 pm

      Cruz has shown more savvy and leadership in this campaign than the vast majority of the other candidates. He seems to understand that the most idiotic thing you could possibly do at this point is dismiss Trump and insult his supporters. If Trump flames out, his supporters aren’t going to enthusiastically line up behind someone who spent months attacking him.

    Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | December 8, 2015 at 5:25 pm

    No, stinking liar.

    I said I don’t believe Cruz would serve in any T-rump administration.

    Hell, I’d hire T-rump if I needed a snake-oil salesman!

    I’m a capitalist. I’ll hire almost anyone who can make me more money than they’re paid. Even you could mow my grass.

    …maybe. Not sure your smart enough…

      “I said I don’t believe Cruz would serve in any T-rump administration.”

      You are entitled to that opinion. Based upon the evidence, you’re just wrong.

      Surprise, surprise, surprise.

I like this proposal. Islam is a choice. The Koran says that they have to kill us. And they will kill you if you deface a Koran. Don’t give me that “people of the book” stuff, because that is abrogated (obsoleted by later teachings). The latest and current command is to kill the men and rape the women. Why wouldn’t we ban someone who has an attitude like that?

” . . . CARTER BANNED IRANIANS FROM COMING TO US DURING HOSTAGE CRISIS:

Interestingly enough, Carter did this by invoking the Nationality Act of 1952. A law originally opposed by Democrats for its attempt to restrict Communist immigration to the United States . . . ”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/FOsteology/isis_zpssfgn5duw.jpg[/img]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend