This is insane: “the No Ban Act would repeal all of Trump’s travel bans and would prevent future presidents from enacting similar broad bans based on national origin.”
So future Presidents would not even be able to ban people entering the United States from a country with which the U.S. was at war.
Note also that this bill is an attempt to end the “Muslim ban,” which does not exist. What does exist is a ban on immigration from several countries, most but by no means all of which are Muslim, that cannot or will not provide accurate information about prospective immigrants. The list of countries was devised during the Obama administration, while Biden was Vice President. Most Muslim countries have no such restrictions. To characterize this, as the hopelessly compromised Judy Chu does here, as “driven by prejudice,” is irrational and dangerous, as it casts a legitimate national security measure as hateful, a line of argumentation that would ultimately make it impossible for the United States to do anything to defend itself at all.
The suicidal, anti-American Left becomes more open about its priorities and intentions by the day.
“Trump accuses Democrats of going ‘Stone Cold Left — Venezuela on steroids!,'” by Marisa Schultz, Fox News, July 25, 2020:
President Trump Saturday lashed out at House Democrats who this week passed a repeal of his travel ban, claiming the party has gone “Stone Cold Left.”
In a morning tweet, Trump said his travel ban that initially targeted predominantly Muslim-majority countries and was expanded after court challenges was a “big win” and “successfully keeps very bad and dangerous people out of our great country.”
“The Dems have gone Stone Cold Left — Venezuela on steroids!” Trump tweeted.
The House Wednesday passed “The No Ban Act” on a mainly party-line vote of 233-183. Two Republicans — Reps. Will Hurd of Texas and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — joined with Democrats.
The legislation was hailed as a long-awaited victory for Muslim Americans and civil rights groups who had been protesting Trump’s travel ban since 2017.
But the victory was expected to be short-lived. The Senate has no plans to take it up, and Trump would surely veto the check on his authority. Trump said Saturday the legislation “hopefully, will be DEAD in the Senate!”…
The No Ban Act would repeal all of Trump’s travel bans and would prevent future presidents from enacting similar broad bans based on national origin….
“This ban never had anything to do with national security; it was always driven by prejudice,” said bill sponsor Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif….
“This is not a Muslim ban,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. “This is a legitimate travel restriction implemented for the safety of this nation.”
J Morgan says
The Left are suicidal.
Wellington says
Seconded.
imboonga says
Theyre mentally ill.
sweetolbob says
Pander, pander, pander ! How many ridiculous bills will the democRATS pass through, knowing that have no chance of passing the Senate, in order to pander to filthy muslims and other anti-American groups, for a few votes before the election.
They are like the proverbial “Dirty Old Man”, saying “Want some Candy, Little Girl” while holding an empty bag.
Same example, same result !
maria says
I suppose that the Senate will stop the House´s terror supported bill
gravenimage says
Hope so…
But the makeup of the Senate could change in November, as well.
Haroldp says
They want to make the country suicidal.
toomanyhobbies says
can you say snowballs chance in He!!?
katherine says
Wish Jihad Watch could call a Dem-rep a dem not a rep to be confused with a Republican-rep.
This dem. Judy ought to be dumped in Urumqi to support Uighur human rights. Love to know what the Chinese govt. would do to her.
janicevanguilder says
The Destruction Party (formerly known as democrats) will not be satisfied until nothing but ashes remains.
Wellington says
Seconded.
Keith O says
The Dumocraps will destroy the country, but it will be all Trumps fault.
Or anyone who sees through their idiocy and trys to stop them.
Wellington says
Seconded.
tgusa says
The only difference between the rioters in the cities and democrat politicians is the crat pols are well dressed sitting in congress pretending to be civilized. Upon the election of President Trump they decided it was better to work in DC to burn down the country through legislation. It is a multi pronged attack on the USA form riots to a virus and many things in between. We simply cannot live peaceably and prosperously with those people any longer.
They will not stop until our country is completely unrecognizable. Sadly, they have forced me to the point where I now hope that the rioters who hate the democrats too burn down their homes wreck their businesses assault their families destroy their futures. We would have been better off permanently separating from democrats 160 years ago. It has always been us or them.
Their motto should be MASA, make America suck already.
Wellington says
Seconded.
James Lincoln says
tgusa says,
“The only difference between the rioters in the cities and democrat politicians is the crat pols are well dressed sitting in congress pretending to be civilized.”
Correct.
“Brooks Brothers” Commies – and always posing, ironically, with an American flag in the background…
Rufolino says
What is wrong with these people ? Their foolishness and malice beggars description. They are seeking to destroy the most admired country in the world..
Huh!?! says
We still have rights to vote and write to Senators and Reps in the House. This must be stopped. I don’t get this. The demoncrats could not care less about the citizens and health of the U.S. Bring in as many illegals, criminals, terrorists as long as they vote for the left. How do we as citizens of the U.S. demand and start impeachment of Pelosi? There are two reps in the House that have clearly stated they want to pull our society down. There must be ways to get them removed and hopefully deported. How come laws on the books about sedition are not being put into force? This has gone on long enough. Uncle Sam does have to bow down to this attack.
This is being treated as a political debate. It is not. Bring on the National Guard and Military and put this down.
roberta says
”We still have rights to vote and write to Senators and Reps in the House.”
In less than 100 days we will see if ”We still have the rights to vote”
Polling/Voting stations will likely be war zones and burnt to the ground.
What we are seeing now could just be the warmup act for Nov. 3rd 2020
I gotta bad feeling about the upcoming Nov. 3rd
CogitoErgoSum says
If the Democrats were at all honest they would change their name to the Democratic Socialist Party of America but they are not – honest, that is. Socialists like to play games with words. They tell us men can sometimes be women and women can sometimes be men but they can’t really tell us what a woman is … and they can’t tell us the truth about what they really are – a bunch of liars.
JMB says
Is this the same Democratic Party that sent a generation of decent young men (including many Australians) to their death in Vietnam to fight the evils of communism and the general threat from the “yellow peril”.
CogitoErgoSum says
The people of that party are now dead and the decent young men who survived that war are now old and nearing death themselves. No, the Democratic Party is dead (or very near to it) and those who now call themselves Democrats are imposters. Now, where have I used the term “imposter” before? Oh, yes, it seems to come up whenever I think of Socialism and Islam.
JMB says
All so very sad.
curious says
Again, the same Petrodollar hypnosis infests both major parties. In 2016, Mike Pence claimed falsely that a Muslim ban would be “unconstitutional”. The President has the authority and the responsibility to defend against foreign invasion, and Congress had previously prohibited immigration by advocates of a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our government. Islam commands the violent overthrow of our government and the imposition of Sharia by violence and lethal force.
Why, then, did Pence call candidate Trump’s Muslim ban unconstitutional? Petrodollar hypnosis and corruption. All Republican candidates other than Trump were campaigning more for KSA than for the USA.
Partisan comments trying to blame everything on one major party, while ignoring all others, devolve into mere sloganeering rather than analyzing cause and effect. The Republicans are in many ways worse than Democrats. The things they seem to agree on are (a) maximizing deficits and (b) protecting Muslims in China. Neither serves the interests of the USA.
curious says
P.S. I should add a citation regarding the USA defending Islam in China: “Trump signs sanctions law over China treatment of Uighurs”
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-signs-sanctions-law-over-china-treatment-uighurs-210057485.html/
The Congressional vote was nearly unanimous in both houses.
Wellington says
For the record, curious, I don’t blame all the rot that is the Swamp which is DC on only the Democrats. There are a lot of Republicans who are part of the Deep State problem too, BUT I refuse to accept the contention that both major political parties are equally to blame. Such moral equivalency reasoning I utterly reject.
The Republicans are bad but the Democrats are far worse—and the Republicans have not lost their aggregate mind while the Democrats have. After all, there are degrees of wrongdoing. It’s not just an either/or, black/white, situation.
The Democrats have “given” America a loon like AOC and a fifth columnist like Omar, as well as the ultra pathetic Nancy Pelosi, not to mention the worst President in American history, one Barrack Obama, who, among so many other wrongs, co-sponsored with Egypt in the UN Resolution 16/18 which would, in effect, criminalize criticism of religion, and thus Obama went DIRECTLY against the free-speech provision of the First Amendment, AND he made the worst deal ever by an American President, i.e., the Iran nuclear deal. No Republican has erred to this extent, in fact not even close—and I write this as one sorely disappointed by the last two Republican Presidents before Trump, Bush 41 and Bush 43.
gravenimage says
+1
curious says
@Wellington, Nixon’s formerly secret deals with KSA were much worse, as were his treasonous 1968 deals with the NVN government prior to getting elected. Also, W43 agreed with KSA to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. The W administration even renewed Mohamad Atta’s visa in 2002, after he had already hijacked a plane and died on 9/11.
Obama’s worst deals included Hillary’s War in Libya and the expansion into Syria (https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n08/seymour-m.-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line), again with KSA. His Iran deal was not even his own worst deal, let alone the worst ever by an American President.
Wellington says
I reject your arguments, curious. All of them.
First of all, you do not detail what Nixon’s family’s KSA deals were. As for treasonous deals with the the NVN government in 1968 you also provide no details or evidence whatsoever. Respecting your assertion that Bush 43 “agreed with KSA to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq,” this is more nonsense with no details, compounded by the fact that every major intelligence agency on the planet—British Intelligence, Israeli Intelligence, even Russian Intelligence, and including the CIA, thought that Saddam Hussein was still hiding WMDs. Bush’s own CIA Director, George Tenet, told Bush it was a “slam dunk” that the WMDs were still there. How in the hell does this have anything primarily to do with KSA? A pretext as you put it? Rubbish. As for the renewal of Atta’s visa, that was a complete bureaucratic screw-up and you know this or should know it.
And yeah, Libya and Syria were just two more mistakes by the worst President in American history, but at least they did not involve the effective repudiation of the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment as UN Resolution 16/18 did. As for the Iran deal, I vigorously contend it was the single worst deal made by an American President with a foreign power and which involved releasing to the #1 state sponsor of terrorism in all the world some 150 billions dollars and allowing, AT BEST, a delay in the production by Iran of nuclear weapons.
Your turn.
curious says
@Wellington, of course you reject logical arguments based on facts, as is your habit. I did not even mention Nixon’s family, so I don’t know why you started in on them. Although trying to reason with you is only ever a waste of time, I will reply with reliable source citations from across the spectrum, left-to-center-to-right, something you can’t even do. (In one exchange, you actually cited Wikipedia, which would amuse your litigator friends, as Wikipedia admits it is definitely not a source.)
Regarding Nixon’s formerly secret deals with KSA shifting the USD from the gold standard to the Petrodollar standard, you could start reading here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret
Regarding his treasonous deal with NVN, you may read here:
https://www.salon.com/2017/09/23/this-is-treason-nixon-vietnam-and-the-sordid-story-of-the-chennault-affair/
As for W, he lied and misdirected popular anger about 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq:
https://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/
Contrary to your claim about British intelligence, they warned specifically that US policy makers were fixing the intelligence around the desired policy:
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/iraq-intelligence-failure-not-quite
Regarding WMD, Pakistan has much more and worse WMD than Iraq ever had, so if the argument were WMD then W should have invaded Pakistan. But Pakistan is an ally of KSA, and even hid Osama bin Laden for the Saudis, while collecting $ from us to “search” for him:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v37/n10/seymour-m.-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden
That report was also independently confirmed.
All of these reports are widely confirmed, so don’t even bother trying to make ad hominem attacks against me or the particular citations; do your own reading for once. You have cited nothing, because you have nothing beyond your own habitual arrogance and bombast.
gravenimage says
curious, the leftist sites you linked to of course hate Republicans.
There is no doubt that conservatives have made mistakes re recognizing the threat as have those on the left–but rarely do you find conservatives who are actually pro-Jihad. Would that you could say that of everyone on the left. (By the way, I am quite liberal on many issues myself).
Few of these sites have said much against Jihad terror, including Salon.
You seem to spend much of your time here picking fights with Wellington. Is this the best use of an Anti-Jihadist’s time? Some of your other comments here have been really good.
curious says
@gravenimage, I agree few of these sites have said much against Jihad terror, except for events too big to ignore (e.g. 9/11). They should do more, but I don’t know how to compete with the trillions of Petrodollars with which Nixon’s deals empowered KSA, which is the actual biggest sponsor of terrorism.
Obama’s deal with Iran is a fraction.
Wellington exchange words, but we do not cast stones; we debate, but we aren’t really fighting. We know nothing about each other beyond our comments here. We exchange words, as lawyers tend to do. The American judicial process depends on adversarial components including the 6th Amendment “confrontation clause”, because often the only way to get to the facts is for opponents to confront each other.
I do find him frustrating, as he insists on one rule for him and another for everyone else. Of note, he is among the dwindling but resolute fraction of people who reject the equal protection of the laws for same-sex couples. He rejected Catholicism for himself but would impose his catechism upon others. He claims sanctimoniously to reject the separate-but-equal doctrine of Plessy v Ferguson, but in reality he advocates the same doctrine. His hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness do frustrate me, but his insults don’t move me beyond stating facts about him.
gravenimage says
curious, thanks for your reply. By the way, I happen to disagree with Wellington re gay marriage, but this is a minor point in the whole scheme of things (moreover, many agree with him).
As for the claim that Wellington intends to impose Catholicism on others, this is a severe misreading of his position. He has noted–quite rightly–that the ethics of the United States and the rest of the West are based on Judeo-Christian values–this does *not* mean imposing Christianity on anyone. In fact, that in and of itself would be counter to those same values.
curious says
Thanks @gravenimage.
Which points seem minor vs major depends inherently on point of view.
Judeo-Christian values include the equal protection of the laws, as codified in the 14th amendment, but Wellington cites his catechism (which he has renounced for himself) as purported authority to mock same-sex couples and to say the state should deny same of the equal protection of the laws. Whether it is imposing Christianity depends on defining that term; selectively enforcing Vatican closet case rule against gay couples might be a more precise phrase, illustrating the hypocrisy.
Wellington says
curious: I hardly know where to begin to refute your many bogus, spurious claims. As gravenimage has already stated, you cite left-wing sites like Salon (Salon is risibly Far Left).
You end up by way of your tendentious articles relying on such things as the bogus Downing Street Memo, which both the British and American governments disavowed (do you even know this?). British Intelligence and all major intelligence agencies were of the opinion that Saddam Hussein was playing games and still had WMDs. Mossad conveyed to the Bush Administration that WMDs were still in Iraq but slowly being taken to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Moreover, SH was THE ONLY dictator in the world who had WMDs AND had used them. Furthermore, SH was regularly violating the truce terms of the 1991 War, for example virtually daily firing on British and American jets flying over the two no-fly zones in Iraq. SH was was also out of control. Bush was shown a video of SH having some of his enemies slowly dipped in acid, an excruciating death. And though Islamic fundamentalists and SH detested each other, they both hated the US and in 2002 SH gave safe haven to a major Islamic terrorist, Zarqawi, No President of the United States after 9/11 could afford to leave such an unbalanced, barbarous dictator in power. Where Bush erred was in thinking that true democracy could be installed in Iraq. After quickly getting rid of SH and his sons, Bush should have chosen some officer from the Iraqi army and installed him in power and left, minus perhaps a few Special Forces to take out the extra bad guys now and again.
Respecting Nixon in 1968, by that year the Vietnam War was lost and everyone knew it with the possible exception of LBJ himself, the last believer. What Nixon did by opening channels up to the North Vietnamese was not a violation of law (or ethics) unless you want to invoke the Logan Act which became law when John Adams was President and which has NEVER resulted in a successful prosecution of anyone. BTW, in the midst of Trump pulling out of the putrid Iran nuclear deal made by Obama, John Kerry was conducting secret negotiations behind Trump’s back with the Iranians and the Logan Act was brought up as possibly being used against him. Just for the record.
I am not going to defend either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Both are awful. Both are treacherous. But those running these woeful Islamic nations were not nuts. Saddam Hussein was and, once again, unlike Pakistan which does have WMDs, SH had used them. Pakistan has not.
The only reason why I referenced Wikipedia is because though I am very skeptical of it, even for purely historical topics like colonial America where it makes many mistakes (e.g., Wikipedia states that New Hampshire was established by the 1691 royal charter issued by William and Mary—no it was not, New Hampshire was established as a royal province in 1679 and its territory was simply left out of the 1691 charter detailing the boundaries of Massachusetts) it confirmed a common take on strict construction and original intent (as an aside, to demonstrate to you how ludicrous it is to assert that strict construction and original intent are not two sides of the same legal coin, imagine strictly construing the word “gay” as used in the 1890’s without taking into account the intent behind the use of this word at that time—the word “gay” as a synonym for homosexual had its genesis in the 1930’s). And interestingly enough, even though you assert that Wikipedia is not a source, one of the articles you provided a link to deals with the Downing Street Memo via a Wikipedia article. Just for the record.
Respecting Nixon’s dealing with Saudi Arabia, though I am no great fan of Nixon, I don’t see how swapping military hardware for buying US Bonds is anything illegal or unethical. It may have been unwise but illegal? C’mon. Besides, there are all kinds of nasty people and countries the US has had to deal with because we live in a real world. Think our supporting Stalin against Hitler as an example. And your claim that KSA is the biggest sponsor of terrorism contradicts the State Department which for many, many years has averred that the biggest sponsor of state terrorism throughout the world is Iran. And I did make a mistake citing Nixon’s “family,” writing that word rather than what I meant to write, your word, “formerly.” This was just a typo and my error. Mea culpa.
Finally, my conviction that marriage should only be between one man and one woman is not rooted in any kind of bigotry but a reliance on what marriage has meant for the vast majority of societies throughout almost all of history. I have no beef with gays or lesbians. I don’t care about a person’s sexual preference, but same-sex marriage for me is an oxymoron and always will be. And again I ask you, and you have not responded to date, is there any way a person can object to same-sex marriage and not be considered a bigot by you? What about people a half century ago, a century ago, two centuries ago, etc. who would have thought same-sex marriage ridiculous if ever mentioned to them? Was everyone a bigot through the ages who did not think same-sex marriage was OK? If not, what point in time did it no longer become OK to think negatively of same-sex marriage? Up until the Supreme Court decision of June 26th, 2015 legalizing it? How about the day before this? What about a year before this? Ten years? Back to the 1960’s? You keep dodging the question I have asked you many times and I will ask it yet again: Is there any way a person can think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman without you getting on your high moral horse calling them out as some kind of hater, irrespective of a SCOTUS decision? No dodge this time, OK?
curious says
@Wellington, yet again you dodge evidence and reason by crying partisan. I cited actual sources from all across the spectrum, but you were “triggered” on seeing the list included Salon.com, and evidently you don’t even know the difference between Wikipedia and Wikisource. As usual, you have cited precisely nothing other than your own arrogance and bombast. Here is a different link to the Downing Street Memo, from the National Security Archive at GWU:
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB328/II-Doc14.pdf
Its authenticity remains unchallenged, and its contents are reinforced by Richard Clarke:
“I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and 9/11], but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we’ve looked at this issue for years. For years we’ve looked and there’s just no connection.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clarkes-take-on-terror/
Happy now?
And on the subject of dodging, why don’t you admit your hypocrisy in sanctimoniously claiming to renounce Plessy v Ferguson while actually endorsing “separate but equal”? I have seen other segregationist commenters on this site, but at least they don’t have your hypocrisy about it.
Regarding John Kerry and the Logan Act, here is a link from The Hill that cites an interview on Faux Noise:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/483848-kerry-responds-to-trump-accusation-he-violated-logan-act-another
This whole article is linked only to a report from Faux Noise, but I don’t complain because I checked the facts and they were (to my surprise) accurate. Maybe you should learn to check facts instead of getting triggered by the messenger.
gravenimage says
curious wrote:
Thanks @gravenimage.
Which points seem minor vs major depends inherently on point of view.
……………….
curious, when Muslims are throwing gay people off tall buildings, then a disagreement between civil unions and gay marriage is indeed a minor thing.
I stand with everyone here who opposes the horrors of Jihad and Shari’ah, even if we disagree on some minor points. I’m sure you and I disagree on some matters, as well–we are bound to–but this pales before what we face from Islam.
curious george says
+1
…………………
Let’s place the blame where it belongs, the American people. We keep re-electing these spineless weasels.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
– Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
curious says
+1
E T says
Canadians are stuck with the worst Canadian Prime Minister ever /Obama twin, Justine Trudeau, who gave us M-103.
gravenimage says
Yes–I feel so bad for patriotic Canadians, E T. And yet a few years ago I envied our northern neighbors when you had the quite decent Stephen Harper, and we were saddled with the appalling Barack Hussein Obama.
Simone says
+1
Wellington says
Can’t second my own comment but here is my comment for what’s it worth: The Democratic Party of the USA is now an enemy and a traitor to America. It has lost its collective mind, has actually become quite silly and puerile in sundry ways, and it is necessary for any sensible American still registered Democrat to give up the ghost of the hope that by staying within this putrid party it can be reversed to the once sane and responsible party it formerly was. That train left the station long ago.
On a tangential note and directly related to this article, what this present bill is trying to achieve goes DIRECTLY against the separation of powers concept enshrined in the Constitution. It represents a usurpation of executive authority by the legislature which makes a mockery of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution and which provision is suffused throughout said constitution.
Compounding all this is that the judicial branch of the American government long ago usurped a significant amount of the legislative prerogative by, in effect, directly legislating from the bench. As an example, regardless of how one thinks and feels about abortion, whether pro-life or pro-choice (and I am pro-choice though just barely), there is NO federal right to an abortion in the Constitution even though the Supreme Court found such a right in the nightmarish, stupid and unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Just because you want a right to be in the Constitution, and even assuming it is something positive (though pro-choice I refuse to look upon any abortion as a positive—every abortion is a tragedy), if it’s clearly not there, as a federal right to an abortion most certainly is not and thus the overall legality of abortion or certain limitations on it should be a state by state matter per the 10th Amendment, then it’s not there and judges should act and rule accordingly. They have not in many cases. Way too many cases—about abortion, about healthcare, about capital punishment, a defendant’s rights, et al. America is a representative democracy but it is also a republic which allots a great deal of power to the states, which power has been unconstitutionally diminished by an ever expanding federal government which often borders on monstrous proportions.
Separation of powers is a hallmark of the Constitution, just one more testimony to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, as are so many other provisions in this magnificent document—the single greatest document ever created by man according to four-time Prime Minister of the UK, one William Gladstone—for instance the Electoral College, which so few really understand but which insures three things, those being 1) making the entire nation count; 2) reducing fraud; and 3) serving as a last-stop measure against a tyrant and rogue becoming President.
Well, this latest idiocy by the Democratically-controlled House serves as just one more example of how as perfect a document as can be created by man can be piece-by-piece destroyed by lesser human beings. Rather like democracy in general. OK, done here (for now).
Keys says
Heartily seconded, Wellington !
curious says
@Wellington, this bill is a blunder, but can you please provide citations for your separation of powers argument? So far, you have asserted without citation (as usual) that the bill “represents a usurpation of executive authority by the legislature which makes a mockery of the separation of powers provision in the Constitution and which provision is suffused throughout said constitution.” If you were to read the Constitution, you would find Article 1, section 8, says, “The Congress shall have Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization….”
Instead of reading what the Constitution says, you launch next into spurious attacks on the judicial branch, totally ignoring the fact that the 14th Amendment in 1868 made limitations on federal power applicable against the states. You seem to dislike the 14th Amendment, and to have no understanding of it. Section 1 says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If you read the opinions in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey (which you failed even to mention, making me wonder if you have even heard of it), you might learn something.
Instead, you recite pious platitudes about the authors of the original 1787 Constitution, with no acknowledgment of how it changed in 1868. Seriously, if you want people to believe that you are a lawyer, you should try reading the Constitution, and learn to quote and to cite it.
Westman says
I’ve missed something. Rewind. When did Wellington claim to be a lawyer?
curious says
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/07/why-erdogan-converted-the-hagia-sophia-to-a-mosque-and-why-the-state-department-should-be-concerned#comment-2254848
gravenimage says
Westman, Wellington is a lawyer, and taught law for decades at the university level. He is very knowledgeable about the law.
Wellington says
curious: How does the legislative power of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, per Article I, Section 8 have anything to do with the right of a President to issue a travel ban as granted by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act and as recently upheld by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii, June 26th, 2018?
And surely you are aware of the many complaints by conservatives of judges legislating from the bench. The one example I gave, Roe v. Wade, where a federal right to an abortion was found in the Constitution. serves as an example. Even someone as liberal as Lawrence Tribe, a Professor of Law at Harvard, said that Roe v. Wade was a terribly decided opinion although he agreed with the result since he is pro-choice (so am I though just barely).
As for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I am quite familiar with that case since I am a life-long Pennsylvanian and it was a Pennsylvania statute that was involved. It was a 5-4 decision which felt the Pennsylvania statute was too restrictive and a minority opinion written in that case by Rehnquist, then Chief Justice, opined that there was no federal right to an abortion at all. Interesting, no? And dispositive of how even Supreme Court justices can differ in major ways on constitutional matters. Rehnquist, joined by White, Thomas and Scalia as dissenters on sundry matters in that case, questioned whether the 14th Amendment due process clause granted a federal right to an abortion in the first place. Incidentally, the chief defendant named in the case was the then Governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, who was a pro-life Democrat and was denied the right to speak at the Democratic convention in 1992 because of his pro-life stance. Contrast this with the fact that at Republican conventions both pro-life and pro-choice Republicans have been allowed to speak, this serving as just one more example of the growing intolerance by the Democratic Party if one does not follow the party line.
And again you engage in a personal attack. I don’t know the Constitution because it was so radically changed by the 14th Amendment. But Rehnquist didn’t think so—and other judges as well—or do you think you know more about the Constitution than Rehnquist did?
curious says
And again you dodge the question. You went on at tendentious length about the Constitution and separation of powers. When I quoted and cited the Constitution, demolishing your false claim, and asked you for a citation, you dodged and shifted to a statutory argument.
In answer to your question, which was either disingenuous or incredibly obtuse, Congress enacted 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and has authority to amend it. Without admitting you were wrong or lied, you have now admitted that the President’s authority to issue a travel ban was granted by Congress in 1952.
And as for your endless whining about personal attacks, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. An honest person would not expect to mock the equal rights and marriages of others without blowback. Your hypocrisy is plain to see, yet you blame the messenger for pointing out the obvious.
Wellington says
curious: Let me get this straight. Are you denying the separation of powers doctrine? My God, the way the Constitution is ordered, with the first three Articles dealing with the legislative, executive and judicial branches, is evidence of the separation of powers doctrine. The Oxford Companion To the Supreme Court Of The United States (a tome I regularly consult) has a very lengthy article on the separation of powers. The Federalist Papers deal with this, especially #10, 47 and 51. Or do you deny the separation of powers doctrine?
Also, I have not called into question your legal credentials or your motives. But you have insulted me and called me, in effect, a bigot, as well as someone who does not know the law. Then when I point this out to you you assert that I am whining. How cheap of you. Very.
I noticed you did not respond to what I said about Rehnquist in the Casey decision, just as I have noticed you keep dodging my question about whether it is possible to oppose gay marriage and yet not be called some kind of bigot by you. How about devout Christians and Jews who oppose gay marriage? Are they bigots too? Are you so dependent on Supreme Court decisions that what that Court says must be accepted? What if the Supreme Court in 2015 had decided against a right to gay marriage in the Constitution (and remember, it was a 5-4 decision)?
I am tired of your implication that I am a hater and that I know very little. You have done this again and again. Grow up.
curious says
@Wellington, your fallacies become tedious.
You are now raising a straw man about the separation of powers. I quoted the Constitution, which says, “The Congress shall have Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization….” I asked you for any Constitutional citation to support your false claim, and you produced none. You claim to invoke separation of powers, but do you even see that the Congress and Judiciary have powers? You admitted finally that the Congress had granted the President authority by statute in 1952, but you fail to acknowledge Congress has the power to amend that statute.
This is in addition to your genetic fallacies attacking the messenger, e.g. when I cited sources from all across the spectrum and you were triggered by one of them being on the left.
Why can’t you admit you were simply wrong?
Wellington says
curious: I am unclear what my false claim is. Spell it out.
curious says
@Wellington, with regard to this article specifically, I started with that:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/07/house-passes-bill-repealing-all-of-trumps-travel-bans-and-preventing-future-presidents-from-enacting-similar-bans#comment-2259421
You dodged and shifted to a statutory argument, and then to fallacies (genetic and strawman).
Wellington says
Not good enough, curious. I don’t want a link to a previous comment of yours. Just, in your own words, clearly articulate what my false claim was.
curious says
LOL – now you’re simply trolling. My prior comment included my own words and quoted you.
Enough of your games. You admitted the House bill would amend a 1952 statute enacted by Congress and the President, yet you would obviously prefer to appear “right” about your false and unsourced Constitutional arguments rather than simply admit you were wrong. This article is not about us; maybe let some other people comment instead of trolling me to repeat what I wrote already.
Wellington says
I’m trolling, curious? Can’t you succinctly state your assertion what my false claim is? That’s all I asked.
And, for argument’s sake, assume I am dense and you are enlightened. Have mercy on me, oh noble one. Just in a few words, state quite clearly what my false claim was. Why not indulge an inferior like myself and for all to witness?
Really, arguing with you is an “expedition” of going from one topic to another. You denigrate, you distort (e.g., that somehow I want to enforce the Catholic catechism on others when I just referenced it, as I did ancient Greek society, to back up my assessment of traditional marriage); you vilify; you don’t respond to queries (examples being, among so many, can anyone object to gay marriage without being, effectively, called a bigot by you, and how exactly does my contention that strict construction does not differ from original intent—and I provided you the word “gay” as used in the 1890’s as an example of why I think strict construction and original intent are intricately tied in with one another, never mind a Black’s Law Dictionary definition of strict construction I provided you which states that said term has “no definite or precise meaning”), et al.
I’m a troll? I disagree. But you are a sophist—and I am convinced Socrates would have been so annoyed by someone like you. I sure am.
Your turn.
curious says
@Wellington:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/07/house-passes-bill-repealing-all-of-trumps-travel-bans-and-preventing-future-presidents-from-enacting-similar-bans#comment-2259421
gravenimage says
Never mind the tedious details–why is curious going after staunch Anti-Jihadist Wellington in the first place?
curious says
@gravenimage, I agree the details are tedious, that’s why I stopped writing to him and simply pasted a link. He asked me, by name, four direct questions. Fed up with his trolling, I replied with a link, not even any words. I think respectfully you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction here.
gravenimage says
curious–with all respect–Wellington is *no troll*. He is one of the most respected posters here.
curious says
@gravenimage, in an echo chamber, people can get “respect” by cheerleading and saying popular things. His comments are plain to see. You wrote that he taught at a university level; that fits with criticisms I have seen of university indoctrination. His whole pile of platitudes and homilies about the separation of powers was totally devoid of citation. When I quoted and cited the Constitution, which says in Article 1 that the Congress has power in this area, he dodged and admitted that the authority he had been thinking of derived from a 1952 statute, which can be amended, as the House proposes to do. Wellington gets “respect” because nobody bothers to questions him. They want to believe the lies he tells, and choose to believe them. If they read the Constitution, then they would see his comments reflect primarily his own arrogance, bombast, fallacies, and hypocrisy. If he did in fact teach at a university, then I feel sorry for the students, who should demand a refund.
curious says
P.S. @Gravenimage, as for what someone is or isn’t, people are often defined by what they do sometimes but not continuously all the time.
For example, we remember Mohamad Atta as a 9/11 hijacker because on that day he led fellow Muslims to hijack an airliner, and flew it into a building. Yet, there were other days when he did not hijack any airliners. The fact he could go a day or even a year without hijacking an airliner does not change the fact that he was a hijacker.
Atta was also “one of the most respected” among his peer group. He was a real (mis)leader.
gravenimage says
curious, Wellington is respected here because he is erudite, very knowledgeable, and a staunch Anti-Jihadist.
The idea that he was indoctrinating his students is pure calumny, and the claims that he is lying even more so.
Finally, comparing the stalwart Wellington to *Mohamad Atta* is so over the top I don’t even know what to say. Your enmity for him appears to have completely unhinged you. Sadly, I have no idea why.
curious says
@gravenimage, you called the details “tedious”, so I have no idea why you insist on prolonging the discussion. Both Wellington and I had moved on, but you have not.
He refers to documents without quoting or citing, so he can seem erudite to others who don’t bother reading the documents that he distorts, but his false claims fall apart like a house of cards when confronted with direct quotation and citation. You said he taught law at a university level, i.e. not practicing law and not teaching in a law school, but rather holding forth to audiences who are neither lawyers nor training to become lawyers. That sounds like an environment where he can distort or misrepresent with no accountability, as becomes the case in any echo chamber with only cheerleaders.
I deny your false accusation of calumny, and would refer you to his comments about me in this thread and others, in addition to those about the Constitution. I could cite examples but you find the details tedious and have wasted too much time prolonging this already. Besides, I do not even claim to have seen all his comments about me, because he has even gone out of his way to comment about me in a thread where I had not commented at all, and in another where I had not mentioned him, and maybe elsewhere. I can only wonder how he reacted to students who pointed out that their purported emperor had no clothes.
As for comparing things, whether like or unlike, your sentence makes no sense. If you failed to grasp the point that a person can become known for something (e.g. hijacking an airliner) without doing that same thing every day of his life, then perhaps read it again.
gravenimage says
The claim that I am the one drawing this out after all of these uncalled for attacks on Wellington is absurd.
Even more so is the idea that comparing Wellington *to Mohamad Atta* is just an innocent example is simply grotesque.
curious says
@gravenimage, although I respect you, there are times when you are obviously wrong, e.g. regarding the statistics published by CATO. This is another example. You are obviously the one drawing this out, and adding false statements.
In his final comment in this very thread, Wellington asked me 4 questions, called me “cheap” and told me to “grow up.” I refrained from saying even one word, replying only with a link. He said nothing after that, and I had planned on saying nothing, but then you decided to launch a misguided crusade including falsely calling me “unhinged” and falsely accusing me of “unjustified attacks.” You have apparently launched into GI Tyson mode, and you are wrong. If you had simply chosen not to draw out this discussion, then the thread would not continue to get littered with details that you call tedious. If you fail to see that, then I suggest enjoying a cup of tea and looking again or moving on.
gravenimage says
curious, I cited the CATO statistics; I never said that I compiled them myself.
As for “GI Tyson”, some other posters, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, dubbed me that a few days ago for my taking on Muslim trolls here. I thanked them for their intent, but would not have actually have chosen that sobriquet myself, since Mike Tyson, while a great boxer, was also a wife beater who converted to Islam.
I’m sure I could find a boxer of equal status who does not have this troubling baggage–although obviously this was not meant by the posters.
As for this thread, since you consider myself to be demanding further replies from you–which is not the case, incidentally–I will likely not reply to any further posts by you here, unless something specifically calls for a response.
Phil says
Bravo Wellington, Bravo!
gravenimage says
House passes bill repealing all of Trump’s travel bans and preventing future presidents from enacting similar bans
……………….
Suicidal insanity. Do the Dems hate Trump so much they want to flood the US with Jihadists? Let’s see this go down in flames in the Senate.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
95% of the world’s Muslims were unaffected by what some insisted on calling a “Muslim ban.”
gravenimage says
Also true, Hugh.
J Morgan says
Democrats in Congress had nothing better to do. The Islamic infiltration is showing.
katherine says
What infiltration ? The Democratic Party is today the foremost Islamic Party of the US.
Like Labour in the UK during Cameron`s tenure, the Muslims concentrated all their resources on the Democrat platform knowing the odds that Dems would have won during the last election – just like Labour during the British event.
The actual infiltration of the US Admin occurred decades ago with leftists and muslims within the security and intelligence agencies. That enabled the placement of worms like Obama and the Clintons at the apex of the government structure.
Once in place the wholesale importation of a traitor army was already a given. Many ignorant voters chose Blacks, Women and Immigrants because the mis-education of the public had been in place for a half century – few people cared about the Constitutional dependence on a Correctly-Informed Citizenry. Mainstream media was allowed to be sucked up by foreign interests – even with the understanding that the 4th Estate was vital to a functional Republic.
Ben Carson was absolutely correct : Muslims have no place in the eschelons of US government units because their only loyalty is to the Ummah – not the Secular constitution. This was quite evident during the swearing-in events of the Islamic POTUS and that of the Muslim congressional reps.
Swearing on the Koran is a blatant statement from the reps that they reject US laws and the Constitution, pledging specifically to uphold Sharia only. It is astonishing that such open insults to the US government protocol is going unchallenged by the lawmakers of both parties.
To top it all the Dems have even announced the fielding of 71 Islamic candidates for 2020. This is no infiltration – it us open admission that the Democratic Party has abandoned the Concept of America and will work towards its destruction with the forced implementation of an Islamic Agenda.
curious says
Thus illustrating that the campaign promise was mostly broken. According to the latest statistics I could find, DJT reduced Muslim immigration by >20%, including reducing Muslim “refugee” immigration >90%, but it continues anyway.
https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18
Yet he bowed down to, and got collared by, the Saudi king, and KSA is unaffected by the ban. In 2016, Mike Pence claimed falsely that a Muslim ban would be unconstitutional. The corrupt Republicans could have implemented a ban, but they lack the will to do what the President campaigned on doing.
gravenimage says
Muslim immigration to the US was down 90% even before the Coronavirus pandemic, according to the Cato Institute.
This is at least a good start.
curious says
@gravenimage, can you please link where CATO says that? I linked their statistics, which say, “Approvals for immigrant visas—that is, for permanent residents—for nationals of the 48 majority Muslim countries have fallen from 117,444 in FY 2016 to 104,228 in FY 2017 to 82,260 in FY 2018—a 30 percent drop overall.”
https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18
Looking at the raw data, the % is actually slightly less than 30, and much less than 90.
gravenimage says
curious, many Muslims come in as “refugees”, and this figure is indeed down by over 90%.
curious says
@gravenimage, I agree it was a good start, but the “refugees” were only a minority among Muslim immigrants:
From the same link: “Muslim refugees peaked at 38,555 in fiscal year (FY) 2016, fell to 22,629 in FY 2017, and reached just 3,312 in FY 2018—a 91 percent decline from 2016 to 2018… The share of refugees who were Muslims dropped from 45 percent in FY 2016 to 44 percent in FY 2017, and then again to 15 percent in FY 2018. President Trump has reversed the earlier trend under President Obama, where Muslim refugee admissions increased.”
https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cut-muslim-refugees-91-immigrants-30-visitors-18
In 2016, Hillary Clinton campaigned on increasing Muslim “refugee” immigration, while Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims. Before being chosen as the VP candidate, Mike Pence claimed falsely that a Muslim ban would be “unconstitutional”. The net result was a territory ban, including Venezuela and now Myanmar / Burma. As @Hugh Fitzgerald wrote, that ban does not affect most Muslim countries, including the ones that have sent terrorists here (e.g. KSA + Pakistan). It is difficult to justify banning Venezuelan Catholics and Burmese Buddhists, but that is the policy:
https://www.cato.org/blog/government-claims-it-has-extensive-analysis-backing-travel-ban-its-not-true
gravenimage says
curious, there is no doubt that Trump has not been able to implement all of the issues he campaigned on–but he is still moving in the right direction, or at the least, not making things worse.
I do not agree with Trump on every point, certainly–but I will be voting for him again in November, chiefly for issues like this one.
James Lincoln says
Anybody here at Jihad Watch have a line on the two Republicans, Reps. Will Hurd of Texas and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who joined in with the Democrats?
James Lincoln says
The politicians on both sides always carefully state that this is not a “muslim ban”.
Call me “far right”, but I *want* a muslim ban!
The rare exception would be for muslim government officials on official business – kept under 24 hour surveillance.
curious says
There would be one if Mike Pence had not claimed (falsely) that it would be unconstitutional.
Something that mystified me in 2016: when candidate Trump choose Pence as a running mate, Trump’s poll numbers climbed. I read that it resulted from a significant number of evangelical “values voters”. Evidently, they value Islam.
rubiconcrest says
Well let’s hope the voters the D’s are counting on have enough sense to see that the direction things are going will not do them any good.
Relic says
let them eat brioche
https://roaminghunger.com/food-trucks/dc/washington-dc/1/
infidel says
If this is not an indication that Islamic Trojans have really wormed themselves deep into the Dem power woodwork, I wonder what else is!! As I have said here b4.. Muslims are masters in worming themselves into the corridors of powers in infidel lands and exert a disproportionate baleful influence.
gravenimage says
Not necessarily, Infidel–most Dems are pro-immigration in all its forms, plus knee-jerk against anything Trump champions. I doubt many of them–except for those like Omar and Tlaib–have any real idea of the danger of Muslims flooding into our nation.
infidel says
But GI, U would have surely noted as to how these Islamic Trojans are literally controlling the Dem think-tanks.. At least that is what is happening in my country India.. Today, the Islamists completely control the Left and have literally wrapped them around their sticky grimy fingers. And even if, as U say, the Dems were already pro-immigration, these Muslim Trojans will further exacerbate and skew this situation. Ps give this thing more time. U Americans are just getting Ur feet wet with Muslims in Ur land.
infidel says
The moment a Muslim sets foot into a Khafir land or housing society and it deos not matter that he got there by begging for refugee status or sweet talked his way into Ur housing colony / street / neighborhood.. the moment he sets his foot there, he will claim ownership of that land / housing society and his sole intention would be to just drive U out in the long run by hook or crook. Of course, this will not take place the next day he arrives.. but that long term process and plotting begins in his mind from minute-1
gravenimage says
All too common, Infidel–both in India and in the West, give Muslims an inch…
Ade Fegan says
Fair enough …. So future bans to be “on the grounds of” dangerous religious ideology
Larry A. Singleton says
Posted on “Representative” Chu’s Fakebook page. Take the fight to the enemy!
Open Letter to “Representative” Judy Chu 7-28-20
“House passes bill repealing all of Trump’s travel bans and preventing future presidents from enacting similar bans”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/07/house-passes-bill-repealing-all-of-trumps-travel-bans-and-preventing-future-presidents-from-enacting-similar-bans
This complete insanity. This dumb-ass construction worker has studied Islam for over ten years. Has this “Representative” Judy Chu?
Obama and the Democrats were directly responsible for the slaughter of 14 people in my hometown of San Bernardino, CA. Starting with the Democrat’s surrender and appeasement to our Islamic enemies after this generation’s second Pearl Harbor on 9/11, at the same time undermining our national security in every way, and when Obama sabotaged an active investigation into terrorism in this country that would have prevented the terrorist attack by those jihadis.
Also it was those who voted Democrat themselves who were responsible for those Americans dying and the many others who have died here at the hands of Islamic terrorists.
The “Democratic” Socialist Party is now the party of Jew haters who have hooked up with the ideological soul mates ot the Nazis: Muslims. Those Muslims and “Palestinian” in congress Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib who shill for Jew murdering “Palestinian” terrorists.
This is all fact. You can tap a few keys and find all this out for yourselves in less than five minutes.
Unfortunately those who voted Democrat are the same target audience as the Dems unholy alliance partners in the media; The useful idiots in this country who are too stupid and too lazy to study the ISSUES, and READ.
I was a life-long Democrat working construction here in California.
I had to sit here and watch while my party stabbed me and millions of other construction workers in the back selling out us and our jobs to Illegal Aliens.
I still remember that corrupt scag Nazi Pelosi spewing the bald face lie in the 80s that “Immigrants only take the jobs Americans won’t do” while I watched whole trades being taken over by Illegal Aliens.
Remember when asked about those scum tearing down statues of our Founders and war heroes Nazi Pelosi literally said “I don’t care”.
Nazi Pelosi turned her own city into a crime infested Socialist Shit Hole with an out of control homeless problem with literally piles of human shit piling up on the sidewalks and homeless people camped out in front of businesses. And it gets worse every day.
It has been the Democrats who have exclusively controlled these shit hole cities for the last 50-plus years and they blame their failures on everybody but themselves.
Now they are literally cheer leading and encouraging the riots, looting, burning, tearing down our statues and the wholesale murder of police officers.
I STRONGLY encourage people to read FrontPage Magazine and Gatestone Institute. My two new morning papers. I no longer read the local rags anymore. Nothing but NY Times and WaPo clones.
I get so pissed watching what the Democrats have done to my city, my state and my country. They are actively trying to destroy this country. Everything our Founders built and everything we believe in. Just as Obama declared war on Christians and went to work putting on the final touches to destroy our US Constitution and our Rule of Law.
How stupid is a voting population who elects a card carrying “community organizing” Alinsky Marxist. Too stupid to see that his “community organizing” and “hope and change” are the Antifa anarchists and Black Lives Matter terrorists tearing our country apart today.
Saying that the Democrats have “moved far to the left” would be a gross understatement.
The Soviets couldn’t have done a better job of undermining and subverting this country. As a matter of fact it is the Democrats themselves that allowed Communism and Marxism to infest this country that our whole education system, from kindergarten to university is the total failure it is today.
To vote “Democrat” is to vote for the destruction of your own country.
Before buying into this “Representative’s” lies and bullshit, go READ Michael Cutler’s articles about our border and national security at FrontPage Magazine.
Judy Chu, the “Democratic” Socialist Party and their Unholy Alliance partners in the media are aiding and abetting the enemy.
The Democrats and Media have been running interference for mass murderers and torturers like the Castro Brothers for decades. READ Humberto Fontova’s articles.
“The Longest Romance: The Mainstream Media and Fidel Castro”, “Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him” and “Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant”, by Humberto Fontova.
Democrats and the media have been betraying us in every way for YEARS. The fact that so many people buy into their bullshit is a reflection on this country’s rapid moral decline since the 1960s. READ David Horowitz’s articles and books.
Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America by David Horowitz.
Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.
Black Rednecks & White Liberals by Thomas Sowell. See The Real History of Slavery and Black Education in book.
sidney penny says
“Two Republicans — Reps. Will Hurd of Texas and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — joined with Democrats.”
Can anyone explain why these two joined with the Democrats?
terry sullivan says
pelosi is sick
Robert Callow says
Some people still can’t see we are heading into chaos
Robert Callow says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ftyZ0eb9A&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR2MU6u_v2DFOgyMQKrndTbV5EQdD46ltR6k7KqJ5Y1fswEXySgdUvx4EwI
Robert Callow says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEWjQOnrZRg&feature=em-uploademail&fbclid=IwAR0ytqRNc0fWriCU9MVuN8K8leZUa5WQnjYX-rkGbeg9d3d02SEuY1hzTG0
Robert Callow says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCHUhxGbIZw&fbclid=IwAR29f6pRSmioEfdWXF1OgMxBFp_Ag-uQB9LowJI-sOQK8GigpPr8uap3ZyQ
Robert Callow says
https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-callow/globalism-multiculturalism-and/2974352399298986/
gravenimage says
Thanks for the link, Robert.
Phil says
The House (Demoncrats) passed it but it still has to go through the Senate. Right now the Left is “virtue signaling.”
gravenimage says
Spot on, Phil.
OLD GUY says
I hope the voters are paying attention. These politicians are not looking out for the people of this country, they are looking out for foreign money lining their pockets. Anyone that voted YES on this bill is selling the American citizens out and needs to be voted out of office.
Jameson says
The funny thing is, if America “wants” to “survive” it will have to stop the spread of Islam within our borders. Sure doesn’t look like that is ever going to happen. And at some point it will be too late to stop it even if enough people do wake up to the threat.
Gourdhead says
This just proves beyond doubt that this shriveled, vile, demonrat is totally out of her former mind.
Ginger Snap says
The House is part of the shadow government or deep state probably. See the Kevin Shipp video on YouTube that is about an hour long with interviewer Mike Adams. Kevin describes what China’s real intensions are. Not good! The flu is very manageable. Doctors that are being banned on the internet that know how to heal people have various protocols. Doctors to search on non-google browser like Brave and non-google search engine like Duck, Duck, Go are Dr. Thomas A. Levy, Dr. Steven Cheng ( US doc that worked with Shanghai doctor team that found the cure published in their news on March 4th this year), Dr. Andrew Saul ( cured his own viral pneumonia in 24 hours with liposomal C), and Dr. Richard Bartlett in Texas. There are many more, but these people are more high profile. They use mega dose liposomal vitamin C ( other C can irritate the stomach), Remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, zinc, and/or Pulmicort in a nebulizer. Some of these are not in the traditional doctor/ Pharma regiment, but are better than the ‘give a Pharma pill for an ill’ method. They actually heal rather than give a bandaid that can cause terrible side effects. To keep this from getting too long, I am happy to share the doctor protocols with anyone who can’t find them in a search.
gravenimage says
Ginger, there is–sadly–no cure for the Coronavirus yet. It can be treated–to a point–but there is neither cure nor vaccine for it at this point.
Don Ameche says
I’m not sure this bill is even Constitutionally legal.
penelope says
also read The Epoch Times for the truth of what is happening.