By Mack Rights
In case you live in a canning jar, Donald Trump suggested that we halt immigration of Muslims because so many Muslims support terrorism. Trump is such a unifying force that he has the girlified liberals and the skirt-wearing Republicans agreeing with Dick Cheney. Sure, Dick Cheney’s fall from grace was the obvious next domino to fall once he’d let his lesbian daughter guilt him into coming out of the closet for gay marriage, but hey, that’s another story.
Donald Trump, in defense of this logical proposal said, “We’re at war- get it through your head.”
The only sane Republican not trying to hurt Trump is Ted Cruz, and good on Ted Cruz.
But, before you join the lemming brigade of Sharia-compliant ankle biters nipping at Trump’s heals, I want you to consider a few things. Many of the whine bags are complaining that refusing to allow any more Muslim immigration is unconstitutional.
If that were the case, then refusing to allow any and all immigrants would also be unconstitutional. Since when does the constitution grant rights to people that aren’t American? Our Founding Fathers wrote that the Constitution was for a Christian people and that if we ceased to be a Christian People, then we’d surely lose the freedoms guaranteed in that Constitution. Since the god of Islam commands that his followers convert me and all infidels at the point of the sword or kill us if we refuse, Islam is an ideology that seeks to deprive me of my unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In that respect, Islam is actually unconstitutional. Therefore, it could be argued that preventing more Muslims from invading our country is actually a form of Constitutional preservation.
If a President Trump were not allowed to refuse access to American shores to all people from Muslim nations, how is it constitutional for President Obama to refuse access to our shores to Christians from those nations- especially considering the fact that Christians are more likely to be slaughtered by the Muslims that are rising up? The State Department actually has a ban on admitting Christians.
That there explains why it is so hard for white Christians of Europe to seek asylum and protection from the totalitarian godless dictates of the European Union. Consider the Romeike family that was seeking asylum from Germany for being persecuted for homeschooling their children in a good Christian way. The Obamites fought tooth and nail to get these white Christians sent back so these children could be taken away by the German state for violating a Hitler-regime law that prevented the parents from protecting their children from the brainwashing of the Nazi state. There was no escape from the Hitler Youth then, and there is no escape from Comrade Merkel’s government indoctrination system now. It’s quite ironic that the liberals are calling Trump a Nazi, but they’re the ones helping Hitler enforce his laws from the grave.
Why is it Constitutional for President Obama to deport 27 Iraqi Chaldean Christian refugees seeking asylum, knowing that the Muslims whom they are trying to escape will quickly rape the women, kill the men and then kill the women?
If using a religious test when it comes to “vetting” Syrian refugees is unconstitutional, why are 236 of the first 237 Syrians admitted all Obama’s Muslim friends. Why is only one refugee a Christian? Did that Christian have to swear allegiance to Allah in order to make it through the “vetting” process?
For unintelligent Democrat henchmen like Hillary Clinton’s Huma Abedin, who calls Trump’s position “racist,” Islam is not a race. It’s an ideology. People of all races are free to subscribe to this ideology, but no single race is responsible for all the evil things done in the name of its god.
For liberals calling for gun control who want to ban semi-automatics or assault rifles, they should know that they can be killed by just about any gun. If they really care about lives, why aren’t they calling for the abolition of all guns? Say it loud and proud that you want to confiscate all guns, even the ones in the hands of law-abiding hunters. With your contempt for Trump for calling for a temporary halt of only some potentially dangerous immigrants, you should have an equal amount of contempt for yourself for not having the stones to call for the confiscation of all guns? If all guns can kill, why are only some guns acceptable?
For all you Sally-boy Republicans crybabying your way through the day, why is it all right for many of you to supposedly oppose abortion, except in the cases of rape and incest? Are the innocent babies conceived in rape really so guilty of their father’s sins that they deserve to be put to death without the ability to face their accusers (that being you)? Personally, knowing many wonderful people that were conceived in rape, I find your position pretty reprehensible.
But, I understand that you believe that you are secretly working on an incremental process. Eliminating abortion incrementally will ultimately end in the elimination of abortion in total, hopefully. Well, why are you so noble in only allowing innocent children conceived in rape to be slaughtered in the process of furthering your supposed goals, but Trump is reprehensible for calling to eliminate and halt immigration incrementally? You allow babies to die, but somehow you’re better than Trump who only wants the Muslims to stay home for a while.
We need to stop all immigration for the foreseeable future. If that means one piece at a time, then so be it. A wall on the Mexican border is one step. Refusing all immigrants from countries that hate us and that are filled with people who want to kill us is another. There are over 94 million working-aged Americans who aren’t in the work force. We need to stop bringing in foreigners to take the jobs of Americans. If it’s one step at a time, so be it.