Poll: 38% of US Moose Limbs agree with ISIS ideology, that is at least 1 million,

[Knot Again]

what should we do????????????????????

 

[Knot Again]

I know


bring

MOAR

in

 

[Knot Again]

ExCuntClinton wants a 500% increase in them

INSANITY!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

How come no link to the poll?

I think we know WHY.

 

[snugglestruggle]

I know


bring

MOAR

in

Obama is already on that. Another suggestion?

 

[JohnnySavage]

what should we do????????????????????

Stay in your basement.

It's way too dangerous out there in the real world

 

[phrodeau]

what should we do????????????????????

Move to Israel.

 

[Knot Again]

How come no link to the poll?

I think we know WHY.

poor "Col", hides behind IGNORANCE and says

WHAT BOOGEYMAN?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

what should we do????????????????????

Outlaw guns and impose strict hate speech laws.

​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hey, looks like Trump is on solid legal ground calling for a suspension of Islamic immigration because otherwise, a foreign power, the emerging Caliphate, would be imposing its will on us...



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...grounds_may_be_used_for_immigration_bans.html

Time to duck and run!

 

[Knot Again]

REPUTZ are as insane and DUMBOZ

 

[hashtag45]

REPUTZ are as insane and DUMBOZ

Word of wisdom of the day.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

poor "Col", hides behind IGNORANCE and says

WHAT BOOGEYMAN?

The only person "hiding" is the one who doesn't post links to the "facts" they allege.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Hey, looks like Trump is on solid legal ground calling for a suspension of Islamic immigration because otherwise, a foreign power, the emerging Caliphate, would be imposing its will on us...



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...grounds_may_be_used_for_immigration_bans.html

Time to duck and run!

Jonathan Keiler's response to the American Thinker article: "While the Chinese Exclusion Act, related legislation and some very old Supreme Court opinions suggest that such a ban would be legal, under the rubric of the nation’s “absolute” ability to exclude foreigners, an actual exclusion on purely religious grounds has not been litigated and would seem to obviously run afoul of the Constitution’s prohibition against the establishment of religion and on religious tests."

Keiler's response fails. If the legal precedence for the substantive exclusion of immigrants is "absolute" as to all government rights and motivations, then the judicial question of exclusion on the basis of religion has, indeed, been litigated as surely as has the issue of racial exclusion. Moreover, the "absolute" exclusionary grounds would also seem to absolve the government from the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and would therefore allow the admission of immigrants of a "restricted access religion" from one country while banning admission to adherents of the same religion from a different country.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So, you have opinion A, opinion B, and no judgement yet.



If it ain't ruled unconstitutional, it's constitutional as far as we know based on past rulings.

We've never been at war with a religion, now have we?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So, you have opinion A, opinion B, and no judgement yet.



If it ain't ruled unconstitutional, it's constitutional as far as we know based on past rulings.

We've never been at war with a religion, now have we?

Well, there's that, too.