Posted on 12/28/2015 9:58:42 AM PST by Starman417
I did a search on Bing for "Trump ban on Muslims" and among the results are these:
Donald Trump defends proposed Muslim ban - cnn.com
Would Donald Trump's ban on Muslims be legal? - CBS News
Trump New Low: Ban All Muslim Immigration to U.S.- That Daily Beast
Trump defends proposed Muslim ban from U.S. as outrage mounts
Muhammad Ali responds to Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering U.S.
Donald Trump's call for banning Muslims from entering U.S. draws condemnation
Donald Trump urges ban on Muslims entering United States ...
Donald Trump: ban all Muslims entering US
This is how the media has portrayed Trump's words. Here's the actual statement:
 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.In other words, a temporary ban. That word never appears in the media's characterization of Trump's quote.
Here is his rationale:
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.Here's something else the media never tells you- voters like this plan:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 66% of Likely Republican Voters favor a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Just 24% oppose the plan, with 10% undecided.More:Among all voters, 46% favor a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, while 40% are opposed. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters believe it is too easy for foreigners to legally enter the Untied States. Only 10% believe it is too hard, while 23% say the level of difficulty is about right.Fox News published a really interesting poll in which voters liked the idea of a temporary ban on Muslim immigration more if it wasn't attached to Trump's name:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump caused a stir last week when he called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States until the government can "figure out what is going on."For this Trump has been vilified repeatedly while being unendingly misquoted.How do voters feel about Trump's proposal? Well, that depends.
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump's ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump's name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the "Trump" ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump's name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump's, support drops to 25 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
I’d love to see “Trump declares fatwa on Muslim immigrants”. How could they take issue with that?
Amen, brother.....
bookmark
I mentioned the poll by the Center for Security Policy to my family during Christmas dinner that said, “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.” Their response: ‘You can never believe polls. Nobody knows about the Center for Security Policy and, for all we know, they could be some crackpot operation making money off stupid people.’
I told them it is that head-in-the-sand attitude that brought us 9/11. Then, I heard that ‘it is all those who are making all Muslims look bad that is just what ISIS wants. The more that ISIS turns Muslims against us, the more they can get people to work for them.’ I then asked, “I wonder what we did to get them to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center?” Crickets. . .
Anyone entering or leaving the US who is not a citizen should be fingerprinted photographed and tracked in a national database. When a vacation or visa expires, an automatic arrest warrant should be issued for that person. Followed by deportation when they are found. There is nothing wrong with this, they are not citizens and have no constitutional rights!
Muslims should also be flagged in the database since they have a tendency to kill.
Every time I hear the lame stream media shout, “Breaking News!” all I hear is Broken “News”.
He said "... until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." What exactly does that mean? How will we know when they know "what's going on" so that the total and complete shutdown can be ended? The long and short of it is that he's calling for an open-ended ban that he cannot set a time limit on.
"A pause for refugees from that part of the world is very appropriate at this time."
Just as Trump suggested.
But Trump did not call for a ban, temporary or otherwise, on Muslim refugees or Muslim immigrants. He called for a total and complete shutdown on Muslims entering the U.S. period. That includes immigrants and refugees, along with tourists and students and businessmen and any other Muslim wanting to enter the U.S. He didn't want to the shutdown to affect only Muslim countries but every Muslim living anywhere in the world. Never mind the fact that he later walked back his shutdown for Muslims who were U.S. citizens or Muslims who were already residents, how would he enforce it on the rest of the world?
The media is in panic mode. They didn’t create the top republican contenders so they can’t destroy them. They HATE Trump, Cruz, and Carson. These are men that made their own way to the top in their chosen profession without ANY help from the media.
Gee, if I search for “trump temporary ban on muslims”, I get a bunch of stories that mention the temporary nature of the ban.
Isn’t that funny? Who knew that search engines give you results based on the words that you searched for???
/s
Sadly, that is incorrect. See the 14th amendment to our Constitution;
Section 1
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Had those two words been changed to "citizen" at the start, we wouldn't have the mess we do now.
Incorrect, the words ‘and subject to the jurisdiction therof’ means that they must be citizens to be under our constitution.
This is the same exact clause that proves that anchor babies are unconstitutional. The only reason anchor babies get a birth certificate is by statute which congress can overturn at any time they wish. Mark Levin talked about this clause at length regarding anchor babies.
Think about it, if our constitution applies to everyone on earth, then we cannot restrict anyone from entering, which is ludicrous!
Usage of the word "person" clearly denotes someone who is not a citizen. Especially when taken with the word "nor" in the last sentence. That also clearly differentiates between a citizen and a non-citizen.
I wish it weren't so.
Are they subject to our income tax? Social security? If our constitution applies to anyone that sets foot into the country then surely these other things would legally apply and they would be penalized like any citizen who doesn’t abide by these requirements?
Of course you’re right. But you know as well as I do, it’s all about selective enforcement these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.