Troops Await Deployment Orders from Ninth Circuit
mamalukino last edited by
The way the Ninth Circuit Court has usurped the powers of the Executive Office, they will be deploying troops to enforce their edits soon. Though this is tongue-in-cheek, it is meant to show the absurdity of their ruling against President Trumps Executive Order travel ban. Seriously, the President could ignore them if he wanted to. They cannot enforce ANYTHING. Their job, forgotten as it is, is to enforce the Constitution. Read this great explanation.
orkan last edited by
People are always cavalier with someone else's money or life.
Make their choices affect them. You'll find that when reality enters the academics comfort zone, their views become aligned with ours quickly. Make them feel the weight of their hollow opinions.
I really don't care if it is racist to block a certain group of people from coming to this country. If that group of people is hell bent on doing harm to my country and its people, thats all I need to know.
Its also very funny to me how the law that Trump issued the travel ban under has not been brought up in court yet. Its all been about feelings and perceived views of Trump and those of us that support him.
dddoo7 last edited by
I know trump didn't do this...but why would it be considered racist for Trump to refuse entry to Muslims? Have the liberals forgotten that "Muslim" is not a race? Muslim is a religion...and a violent one at that. I have no understanding or tolerance for a Muslim to claim that they are peaceful. The reason being is that their Koran teaches violence. If their book of authority teaches violence against non-believers...then aren't "peaceful Muslims" violating the authority of the very book they claim to be following.
Now...don't get me wrong. I don't believe that every Muslim is violent. I do however believe that every Muslim that is faithful to the Koran is violent. Therein lies the danger with "peaceful Muslims". At what point are they suddenly going to realize that they have to be violent towards non-believers in order to be faithful to their doctrine? This is the reason I have no problem banning ANY and ALL religions from our country whose doctrine teaches violence...including the Muslims. This is not racist...as there is not a single person that was born a Muslim...they chose to be Muslims. Just as I was not born a Christian...I chose to become a Christian.
"Racist" would be if I chose to discriminate against an entire RACE of people (regardless of religion) based on anything. I have no problem with peaceful people from the middle east. I have a problem with people claiming to be peaceful AND claiming to follow a violent doctrine at the same time.
Now...the constitution protects certain rights...FOR CITIZENS. The constitution is for citizens of the United States. Our laws are for citizens of the United States. There are many RIGHTS that come with being a citizen that are not rights for foreigners. This is something we have forgotten. We have had these rights for so long that we feel like these rights are guaranteed for everyone and that it is our responsibility to provide these rights to everyone. Example: I have the right to plead the 5th, I have the right to a fair trial, I have the right of no illegal search or seizure, I have the right to vote, I have the right to a fair trial, I have the right to an attorney. Each of these rights are rights FOR CITIZENS. The constitution in no way guarantees these rights for anyone other than the citizens of the United States. That means that illegal aliens, legal aliens, people here with a legal visa, foreigners visiting family, and people that have denounced their citizenship DO NOT HAVE THESE RIGHTS protected by the constitution. How then can it be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the president to refuse the rights of citizenship to foreigners?
Maybe I am missing something...but I think democrats need a refresher course in American Government.
@dddoo7 As a man of faith, have you ever read the Koran? Just wondering your take on it if you have.
dddoo7 last edited by dddoo7
I have not read the Koran in its entirety. I have read parts of it...enough to know that it is a violent book.
Mohammed started out peaceful when he started teaching...and in the earlier stages of the Koran it teaches peace. The middle stages of the Koran he begins to get a little more aggressive and by the end of his life he has quite the following and has began to teach "convert or die".
One major problem I have with the Koran is the origin of the Koran. ANY book claiming to be inspired by God (or Allah in this case) must have an undeniable origin. The Koran that is available today is considered to be the teachings of Mohammad. They were passed down through his followers by memory and word of mouth for many years before they were actually written down as a whole. There were partial manuscripts...and these were taken into account when the current Koran was recorded...but the most weight was placed on the memory of his followers decades after he taught these things and was gone. To make matters even more sketchy...all of the manuscripts were gathered up and destroyed after they decided on what the Koran should say. This prevents any follower (or critic) from examining the earliest manuscripts to see if they read the same as the current Koran.
In comparison...the Bible has literally THOUSANDS of manuscripts...and these can easily be referred back to by anyone who can read the original language. Therefore if I ever doubt whether or not a passage is really from God I can go back to countless number of written manuscripts and compare them to see if it has always been there or if it was added later. Among the thousands of reliable manuscripts of the Bible (handwritten of course) there only minor differences between these manuscripts...and no differences that change the doctrine. There are more discrepancies in the writings of Shakespeare than the reliable manuscripts of the Bible. A study of the manuscripts of the Bible has done more to strengthen my faith than most anything else. A study of the origin of the Koran quickly revealed the book as an unreliable source.
BTW-- @orkan Please don't ban me for talking religion. I know most gun forums don't allow it...and if that is your wishes I will honor them.
mamalukino last edited by
Ditto. I really do appreciate your insight though ddd.
orkan last edited by
Talk of religion is fine. Talk of faith and moral principles, even better.
What isn't tolerated is certainty without fact. Thus far, no religion has "proven" they are more right than another. However, any message that would have people being righteous to one another is fine by me regardless of what name it calls itself or its followers.
As a free man, I refuse to submit myself to the trappings of others judgement. Those that would harm my family or its future security will be resisted no matter what they call themselves or what side of an imaginary line they are on.