ObamaCare and Gay Marriage Proponents are Far More Extreme Than Donald Trump
Breibart News.Com by John Nolte December 8, 2015
While I disagree with Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration (the reasons are spelled out here), and am very comfortable labeling his proposal as extreme, what’s lacking in this debate is context and perspective. Nothing Trump is proposing in this ban in any way violates anyone’s Constitutional or human rights. This is not true, though, for those in favor of gay marriage or Obama Care.
If you want to talk about extreme, let’s talk about extreme…
No foreigner has a Constitutional, legal, moral or human right to come to America. That doesn’t make it okay to ban all Muslims — in fact, it is not okay. What is far less okay, though, is the violation of human rights that have come from ObamaCare and the legalizing of same sex marriage.
Almost all of the same shrill, hypocritical Leftists and DC Media-types screaming “religious freedom!” in opposition to Trump’s immigration ban, are the very same fascists aggressively using the federal government to strip Americans protected by the Constitution of their human rights, specifically the right to honor their religious conscience.
ObamaCare outright forces the Faithful to violate their religious conscience; we’re forced to fund birth control and abortion.
On top of that, most gay marriage supporters want to use the power of the government to force the Faithful to choose between staying in business and violating their religious conscience through participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony, something many faiths (including the Muslim faith) see as the sacramentalization of a sin.
Trump wants to deny foreigners access to America. Compare that to the DC Media cheering every step of the way as the Gaystapo actually put Kim Davis in prison over her refusal to violate her Christian conscience.
Trump is stripping no one of their civil or human rights.
The fascist backers of gun control, ObamaCare and gay marriage are.
Trump’s Muslim ban bothers me.
The Left and the DC Media terrify me.
9 comments:
This is where I think we're going to have a problem.
Syed Farook, US citizen, visited a terrorist mosque in Pockeestahn.
If there's going to be a ban of foreigners, there ought to be one on any citizen who gives cause that he might be a terrorist sympathizer or agent until he can be properly vetted.
And, yeah, anybody in this country in league with known terrorists or terror organizations should be deported. Including citizens after being stripped of their citizenship.
Why is it wrong to put a freeze on Muslim immigration? Did America allow Germans or Japanese to immigrate during WW II? I honestly don't know the answer to that question but my guess is that there was a freeze on immigration from those two countries at that time. Islam is at war with us. With the exception of the willfully blind that has to be obvious by now. Under that circumstance it is suicidal to admit those - that would be ALL Muslims - who adhere to the central tenet of that religion, which is to spread the religion by every means necessary, violence included, until the infidel submits or is dead. That is taught be every imam in every mosque. To not teach it would be apostasy. Actually, putting a freeze on further Muslim immigration is only a half-measure. But it's a start.
There is already a defacto bias against admission of Christians from the Middle East. Apparently potential refugees are selected from U.N./Muslim run camps where it's too dangerous for Christians to live.
I haven't heard any of the Establishment Repubs let alone the Leftists in our government question this on behalf of the Christians there that a running for their lives. I believe of the 10,000 "Syrians" slated to be resettled in this country, less than one percent are Christians.
By the way, Cruz and Paul had already introduced legislation stopping immigration from Muslim countries with Jihadist movements. Trump wasn't the first, just the loudest. The Establishment, open borders Repub, Marco Rubio is against all these measures.
Why not ask instead why the U.S. is only taking such a very small percentage (I've seen several percentages quoted: 3%, .4%, only five since refugee crisis began ...) of Christian Syrian refugees? They're the ones who really need refuge from the middle east and middle easterners in general. IS THERE BIGOTED DECISION-MAKING GOING ON AT STATE? Kind of like asking if there's gambling going on at Casablanca. (Or, alternatively, maybe all the Christians already dead thus relieving State of the sacred burden of discriminating based on religion.)
Anyway, inquiring minds want to know.
Because once it is teased out that we can ask immigrants what religion they are, that it's not Unamerican and tantamount to being on the Wrong Side of History, it will come out that, of course, the Obama Admin knew that all along and has been doing exactly that.
And the GOPe will have stepped on its dick AGAIN.
edutcher said...
This is where I think we're going to have a problem.
Syed Farook, US citizen, visited a terrorist mosque in Pockeestahn.
If there's going to be a ban of foreigners, there ought to be one on any citizen who gives cause that he might be a terrorist sympathizer or agent until he can be properly vetted.
And, yeah, anybody in this country in league with known terrorists or terror organizations should be deported. Including citizens after being stripped of their citizenship.
There is no problem here at all. If you are a citizen, you get due process for being a radical muslim terrorist, you get convicted, stripped of your citizenship and deported outside of the country. If you are a foreigner, wait the fuck outside, do not go past go, do not collect $200 because we as a country are under zero obligation to cater to you. You aren't a citizen, you don't have the rights of a citizen, wait outside the gates. See how easy that is?
Post a Comment