Posted on 07/30/2016 10:08:43 PM PDT by TigerClaws
<><><>
I just read that thread you posted / this is the bottom line!:
<><><>
Muslims Expected 100,000 to Attend Anti-Terror Rally in DC – Only a Couple Dozen Show Up
Kristinn Taylor Jul 30th, 2016 11:05 pm 11 Comments Muslims against terror rally DC 07232016 State Dept 2
A rally organized by Muslim groups held on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. on July 23 was planned with the goal of drawing 100,000 attendees. Only dozens showed up according to media reports.
<><><>
Hence! The whole damn country is loaded up with newly purchased guns now because of these filthy murderous rapist Muslims here in our own country!
(Hence! All the other Muslims who should have been at that rally -were stationed behind rlmorls house, waiting for trusting him...to make some kind of mistake!)
Shhhh, lol. Quiet, you’re bothersome.
Right, it’s just our friendly pile rlmorel who is fogged up and can’t see the light.
Right pile, and this is why the whole country is loaded up with guns and ammo....for protection.
Exactly unixfox and the trojan horse’s have come and they’re still more coming! :(
good job!
Perhaps. If it is against the Constitution to discriminate against an American citizen based on race, religion, etc., it isn’t against the Constitution for people to keep an eye on people they don’t trust.
I have no problem with rounding up illegal aliens and deporting them en-masse. I have no problem with denying entry for any valid reason whatsoever to people who want to come here to become citizens, work, study, or vacation. If they are not American citizens, we have no obligation to admit them even if we don’t like the color of their hair. Period.
But we do have a Constitution, and if someone is an American citizen, like it or not, they are entitled to protections under that Constitution the same protections WE enjoy (or at least, used to). We have a Constitution that is supposed to mean something. If we decide in this case we will make an exception, then who will be next to make “an exception”? Liberals who think conservatives shouldn’t be allowed to live here?
We castigate liberals all the time over their observance of the Constitution, and rightfully so.
We are a republic ruled by laws, or we aren’t. There are plenty of times I don’t like the fact the people that I don’t care for can’t just be rounded up and shipped somewhere else, but that’s the way it is and we will have to live with it.
We only have two choices: Observe the Constitution, or don’t.
If we observe the Constitution, and we feel it should be altered to deny protections to Mohammedans, then we should alter it via Article V. That is what it is there for. And there is no reason it could not be used for this purpose. There are some who would argue that denying the right to live in the USA as a muslim contradicts the basic premise of the Constitution, but that is a different question. If an amendment clears all the hurdles and becomes part of the Constitution, then it is law. IF WE DO NOT AMEND IT, WE MUST OBSERVE IT.
The other option is not to observe the Constitution. Many (including myself) feel we are there already, but taking a step to round up American citizens we find distasteful or untrustworthy is one of the things that would destroy all of it for good and mean the end of the United States of America. It may come to that. But that is the other option.
There is no third option, since dissolution of the union is implicit in the second option.
I can’t believe I have to spell this out for some people on Free Republic (not you dwfgator, because I am pretty sure you understand it from your posts in the past) but this is something many of us take issue with liberals in general, and this administration in particular.
Well, I agree with you on that, and I believe any judicious and sane person would. It is just one of the reasons we have the 2nd Amendment. For protection.
Thanks. Some people seem to think that because of that post at #118 I have an inordinate love and trust for Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But I do have an inordinate love for my country and the Constitution that makes it the United States of America. If not for the Constitution, the USA would not be The United States of America, it would be Europe or Africa, a geographical location with a lot of different sub-locations.
It is The Constitution that makes us American. My love of our country exceeds my distrust and dislike of Islam. If people want to throw out the Constitution, the instrument that makes me what we are, I hope they are prepared to be an African country, because that is what we will be.
I would hope they would decide it is better to Amend the US Constitution than discard it.
Unfortunately, if an 18 year old Communist came, etc. etc. I would also be unable to trust him as “the end justifies the means (including lying)” is a basic part of their code. On the other hand I have gotten to know an Iraqi journalist in his 30s fairly well. He started out as an Islamic fanatic in Iraq, was imprisoned and tortured, and somewhere along the line did a complete about face and is now a dedicated atheist who is very concerned about the danger of radical Islam to the world.
Do they belong to an organization with the stated goals of global conquest, genocide, and enslavement? Does they belong to an organization with standing declarations of war against us or allies?
Not so hard. Of course it excludes slimes almost exclusively, and rightfully so.
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the presumption of innocence HAVE rough edges. Countries that dedicate themselves to freedom must (A) keep hate down to a very low level and (B) employ sufficient police resources to keep the small amount that remains in check.
Democrats are dangerous, first, in that they deny the hatred that exists in Islam. The question isn’t whether a majority of Muslims are hateful. A free society cannot survive if even several percent (single digit type) of their people are violent. And, second, because Democrats would so handicap the police that we would be unable to control the few that are violent. As to whether Islam inherently percolates a stream of haters, as long as Muslims are in denial of the problem they are posing to the world, it will be difficult for non-Muslims to figure out what’s wrong with them.
With regard to immigration and assimilation, there is a practical limit to how many immigrants who don’t share our democratic values we can allow into the country at any one time. “Learning” doesn’t all take place in school. Much occurs in life, as people go about their business, earning a living and interacting with others. Immigrants, living in ethnic enclaves and sustained by welfare will not learn our democratic values.
BOTTOM LINE: To keep our democratic values, we must control our borders, limit immigration, deny welfare to immigrants and insist that they support themselves, and support law enforcement. The Democratic approach will only continue to undermine our democratic values, while the Republican approach will strengthen the values that made our country great and will do so again.
I agree completely with your post, and I do believe there should be exceptions as I said in my original post.
In the examples I gave such as an Iraqi who had worked as a translator for our forces, had fingered bad guys on his own, had credentials to show he hated the radical islamists and/or had the scalps to prove it or personal endorsement of US Military he had worked with, I would take that into account.
This does open us up to the the risk of someone who is a deep plant undergoing “Sudden Jihadi Syndrome”, but I believe the responsibility we have (to give someone like that the chance) outweighs the risk we might open ourselves up to.
There are muslims who do hate the radicals and have put their and their families lives and reputations at risk in order to help us and work with us. We owe them the option to leave.
We are honor-bound to offer that option, in my opinion.
So, yes. I agree with you there.
I would disagree that it would be easy enough, but it can be done as long as we can accept that we may have to throw out the good with the bad, which I am fully in support of, as much as I don’t like it.
If they belong to an organization with the stated goals of global conquest, genocide, enslavement, and/or standing declarations of war against us or allies, that makes it easy if we have a way to prove that, but the reality is, we probably won’t.
But I believe it is our right to deny entry regardless.
We shouldn't grant anyone entry as an immigrant if they do not share our vision of democratic values and swear an oath saying so. Not even one should be allowed who won't. I understand that the oath of citizenship was changed recently to remove the "defend the United States". Don't know if that was true, but if so, says a lot to me about those managing immigration, and none of it good.
You’re thinking all people think like democratic people. Clearly, this is not the case with children. But, even with people who have reached the age of majority, it is a rare person who thinks like a free person who hasn’t been cultured to be a free person. But, some people think being free means, for example, being able to vote to redistribute the wealth, as opposed to being responsible to support oneself and one’s family. Recall Lincoln’s adage, to the fox and to the sheep, freedom means different things. To people of the right, freedom means being self-responsible, and to people of the left, it means being freed from self-responsibility.
Possibly you mean to say that only people who can demonstrate a sufficient understanding of what it means to be a free person, as in a written or oral test, can be allowed in. The old way was to have such a test (as imperfect as any test is), after a period of residency in conjunction with a citizenship test. This way, we would see whether the person was able to behave as a free person such as by obeying the law and supporting himself and his family, in addition to being able to demonstrate some knowledge concerning being a citizen of a free society.
Your sense is correct that the other side wants to bring in refugees, put them on welfare, and give them the right to vote. Those people would be cultured to think that freedom means voting to redistribute the wealth.
You are correct, I am not drilling down on exactly what that means, and as we all know, the devil is in the details. I was bypassing that to make a larger point.
Until we have good, easy to cheaply administer, semi-accurate biometric ways of detecting deceit, it is going to boil down to someone doing an interview trained to detect deceit, and as we all know, the cadres of people doing it now are mostly liberals who are inclined to say, “Well, he SAID he was telling the truth!”
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.