Trump: It’s time for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S.; Update: Not my policy, says Cruz; Update: American citizens too

posted at 5:21 pm on December 7, 2015 by Allahpundit

A perfect complement to the Ben Sasse post, which wondered how many Americans agree that the lines are drawn between “militant Islam” and “everyone else.”

I think Jeff Blehar’s right. You-know-who saw that Monmouth poll of Iowa this morning and figured he’d better do something dramatic.

CAIR’s reaction:

He’s not just talking about immigrants and refugees, campaign manager Corey Lewandowski emphasized. He’s talking about tourism too. No more Muslims until we “figure out what is going on,” whatever that means.

It’s a perfect Trumpian play, though. It’s highly politically incorrect; the media will go positively batsh*t over it; the rest of the GOP field, especially his new rival Ted Cruz, will squirm about how to respond; and the more heat Trump takes from all sides, the more his fans will love him for it. This is why so many Trump critics, me included, thought that Trump was agreeing with that reporter a few weeks ago when the reporter started asking him about a database of Muslim citizens. That proposal would accomplish most of the same things politically for him that this one does. Maybe he’s saving it for when Cruz crosses 35 percent in Iowa.

Cruz, by the way, also wants to restrict Muslim immigration — but only a particular type, namely refugees, and only from Muslim countries like Iraq and Syria that contain “territory substantially controlled by a foreign terrorist organization.” Tourists and immigrants would presumably still be welcome. Trump’s strategy here, I take it, is to show blue-collar Republicans that Cruz is, to borrow the phrase of the day, a “total pussy” for not being as hard-ass against Muslims as he is. What it’s going to end up doing in practice is making a lot of center-right Republicans more comfortable with the idea of nominating Cruz as a less demagogic alternative to Trump if it turns out that Cruz is the only guy in the race who can realistically stop him. In fact, a Twitter buddy tweeted at me after Trump put this statement out that Trump is a stalking horse for Cruz, a guy whose role in the race is really just to advance Cruz’s political interests. I don’t buy that — they’re too different ideologically — but I’m less skeptical of the idea than I used to be. Give Trump another month of high polling and you’ll have Jeb Bush donors quietly sending money to Cruz Super PACs to take him down.

Meanwhile, the line to denounce Trump is forming:

Graham and Flake are Gang of Eight-ers but I bet you’ll even see some immigration hawks slam Trump’s idea as overbroad and unfair to innocent people.

Exit question via Rebecca Berg: Doesn’t this guy own a golf course in Dubai? Shouldn’t he sell that and stop doing business with Muslims until we “figure out what is going on”?

Update: Christie jumps in.

Update: Trump keeps upping the ante rhetorically on Muslims, I think, not just because his fans like it but because he knows Cruz is eventually going to attack him as eight flavors of RINO on things like eminent domain, health care, protectionism, you name it. Being ever more hardline on immigration and terrorism is a sort of defense to that, if you don’t take conservatism too seriously to begin with. The risk he’s taking, though, by escalating his rhetoric is that eventually some Republicans will decide that they just can’t vote for him if he’s the nominee — not on political grounds but on moral grounds. The former isn’t an unsolvable problem; lots of people who prefer candidate A right now will claim that they could never vote for candidate B as nominee, but that’ll change once the “candidate B will advance more of my agenda than Hillary would” logic of a general election campaign sets in. If people decide they can’t vote for you in good conscience because they object to you morally, though, that’s a harder nut to crack. The only way to undo it might be to tack to the center. And if someone like Trump did that, he’d blow up the reason why many of his fans like him in the first place.

Update: Here’s Fiorina.

Bush and Rubio are givens to criticize Trump but they haven’t commented yet.

Update: A terse statement from Ted Cruz.

Right, I described his policy above. He’s going to get badgered by the media to elaborate, though. That’s another clever part of this for Trump: In a way, his competition will take more heat for it than he will.

Update: And here’s the Bush denunciation:

Update: This is also true, needless to say. If you doubt it, go look at the numbers I posted in the Sasse thread.

Update: If you’re an American Muslim on vacation abroad and the Trump plan goes through, you’d better get comfortable where you are. Apparently you don’t get to come home.

When asked by The Hill whether that would include Muslim-American citizens currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.'”

Obviously this is a very serious proposal from Team Trump. So serious it’d make your head spin.

Update: Good point from Ben Shapiro:

Kiss Our Intelligence Apparatus Goodnight. We need to work with Muslims both foreign and domestic. It’s one thing to label Islamic terrorism and radical Islam a problem. It’s another to label all individual Muslims a problem. That’s what this policy does. It’s factually wrong and ethically incomprehensible. Donald Trump has just transformed into the strawman President Obama abused on Sunday night.

So no, this isn’t a good idea. It’s a rotten idea all the way around: legally, ethically, practically. Trump’s supporters need to realize at some point that knee-jerk extreme reactions to events of the day don’t substitute for good judgment. It’s ugly when it’s President Obama looking to grab guns from American citizens without due process, and it’s ugly from Donald Trump. Given the poll numbers, it’s not clear whether Americans will get wise to that truth.

Update: And here’s Rubio.

Incidentally, Trump apparently told Greta Van Susteren during an interview tonight that Muslim-American servicemen would be allowed to return home. Also he has many Muslim friends and they’re good people.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 11 12 13

I’m truly sick of the mindless political correctness that has permeated the GOP.

Monkeytoe on December 8, 2015 at 7:44 AM

The GOP? It’s permeated the general populace as you can see from the lunacy in this thread.

DFCtomm on December 8, 2015 at 7:52 AM

Now the polling companies are getting calls like this:

You know if you do polls that make Trump look good something may happen to the Bussiness you get from people like us.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 8, 2015 at 8:02 AM

Trump would even restrict the re-entry of citizens who are muslims. And we should. Especially “citizens” who visit places like Saudi Arabia, Pock-He-Ston and other hotbeds of terrorist islam. These people at the very least should not be allowed back into the United States until a THOROUGH investigation into their activities in those countries is completed, an investigation THEY must pay the cost of.

ConstantineXI on December 8, 2015 at 8:03 AM

Monkeytoe on December 8, 2015 at 7:44 AM

Exactly.

This is why I keep writing and saying that the Saudis are just as dangerous as Iran. Why? Iranian influence in American political circles is small, but the Saudi influence among our political elite is large. Their money funds Islamist organizations throughout the earth.

I could make the argument that the return of Jihad that started in the second half of the 20th century was not due primarily to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, but was due in fact to Saudi Arabia becoming wealthy and a oil power. They have used that money and power (when not used in their own personal interests) to return Islam to what they feel is its rightful place, and to humble their ancient enemy…the west. It is their hobby that has now gone global and even beyond their control.

The authentic old school Islam is back…and we can thank the Saudis for this.

William Eaton on December 8, 2015 at 8:05 AM

Well, since this offends the PC snowflakes so much then we should suspend ALL immigration right now. This country is in terrible shape and letting in more people is not helping us. Now with the mass invasion of Europe, terrorists will be coming over from France, Germany etc so just putting a ban on terrorist sponsor nations is not going to work anymore. Put a halt to all immigration until we have eliminated the threat. America needs to protect American citizens FIRST the rest of the world can wait.

BeachBum on December 8, 2015 at 8:06 AM

Fox News is in full melt down panic.

Judit Miller is on Fox Bussiness calling him ugly names.

Dear Fox News,

People from Syria do not have U S Constitutional rights.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 8, 2015 at 8:08 AM

Trump and all of his supporters have convinced me that they are a greater threat to this country and its liberty than any Democrat. We need a leader who will use every power available to crush, destroy, and eliminate these people from this country. Rand won’t do it, but maybe there’s someone running who will.

TBSchemer on December 8, 2015 at 3:29 AM

Get a load of the eliminationist rhetoric from someone complaining about “fascism.”

Typical liberal.

vlad martel on December 8, 2015 at 8:15 AM

I could make the argument that the return of Jihad that started in the second half of the 20th century was not due primarily to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, but was due in fact to Saudi Arabia becoming wealthy and a oil power. They have used that money and power (when not used in their own personal interests) to return Islam

William Eaton on December 8, 2015 at 8:05 AM

We should have taken the oil fields and broken up OPEC in 1974. But the Soviet Union and Watergate made that problematical.

Younggod on December 8, 2015 at 8:21 AM

Here’s a thought experiment – say in the near future a dirty bomb goes off in lower Manhattan or the mall in DC, does anyone disagree that Trump’s proposal will be seen as conservative compared to what the public will demand? Also, if there is another attack like San Bernadino in the next few months he will be able to say “I told you so”. I am strongly opposed to Trump as the nominee or president but human nature isn’t that hard to figure out.

alofarabia on December 8, 2015 at 8:24 AM

Trump and all of his supporters have convinced me that they are a greater threat to this country and its liberty than any Democrat. We need a leader who will use every power available to crush, destroy, and eliminate these people from this country.

TBSchemer on December 8, 2015 at 3:29 AM


Don’t Get Mad — Get Vlad

Putin 16

Younggod on December 8, 2015 at 8:25 AM

The GOP? It’s permeated the general populace as you can see from the lunacy in this thread.

DFCtomm on December 8, 2015 at 7:52 AM

true. common sense appears to be a thing of the past.

How it is believed by anyone that the U.S. is obligated to take in immigrants is strange. That they believe the U.S. isn’t allowed to make rational decisions regarding who to admit and who not to admit is sad.

Monkeytoe on December 8, 2015 at 8:29 AM

Trump and all of his supporters have convinced me that they are a greater threat to this country and its liberty than any Democrat. We need a leader who will use every power available to crush, destroy, and eliminate these people from this country. Rand won’t do it, but maybe there’s someone running who will.

TBSchemer on December 8, 2015 at 3:29 AM

Get a load of the eliminationist rhetoric from someone complaining about “fascism.”

Typical liberal.

vlad martel on December 8, 2015 at 8:15 AM

You cannot make that degree of hypocrisy up. Perfect example of a credibility-destroying, character-revealing, foaming-at-the-mouth freudian slip.

bobthm3 on December 8, 2015 at 8:29 AM

progressive = fascist

Younggod on December 8, 2015 at 8:41 AM

Here’s a little test for you, HA readers. If you can’t name the country with the biggest Muslim population in your first three guesses, you have to admit you are actually almost completely ignorant about Islam.

Deal?

redandexpert on December 7, 2015 at 5:33 PM

That’s one of the most pointless things I’ve read on here. I only need to know a few things about Islam.

#1 It’s NOT compatible with the U.S. Constitution
#2 It’s NOT a peaceful religion and calls for enslavement/conversion/taxation/death of non-Muslims.
#3 It’s the cause of MOST of the world’s strife right now.
#4 Radical Muslims want to kill me and my family and there are almost NO Muslims standing up and denouncing the radicals.

THAT’S pretty much all I need to know.

Nineball on December 8, 2015 at 8:41 AM

List of Muslim atrocities in 2015

ElectricPhase on December 8, 2015 at 8:57 AM

Liberals and GOP establishment types are hyperventilating every time Trump makes a statement. Meanwhile, his numbers continue to rise. They’re reaching a panic point. There’s nothing they can do to stop the American people from stopping their cartel’s strangle hold on our country. Flake and McCain remind me of Snow in the Hunger Games…a power mad elitist desperate to hold onto power.

cajunpatriot on December 8, 2015 at 9:14 AM

Okay, we’ll split the middle… shut down ALL immigration.

It’s been done before and it’s a sensible policy. Immigration should only continue for as long as it benefits the country and its citizens… does anyone really think we’re benefiting from immigration these days?

Ukiah on December 8, 2015 at 9:22 AM

What the heck is wrong with a moratorium on ALL immigration? We are up to our necks in this sh!t right now precisely because we did not take the unpopular stance years ago when we could have. Instead we let 7 years of an anti-American, pro-illegal alien, pro “peaceful religion” Muslim president incrementally change the landscape of this nation.
How long have we been screaming “seal the border first, then work on a new immigration policy”? What’s the difference between sealing the border and instituting a moratorium? What’s the difference between “figuring out what’s going on” and working on a new immigration policy?
If the borders aren’t sealed, illegals will keep pouring in. If the Muslims aren’t kept out, we will have San Bernardinos every day.
Cruz just lost a lot of favor with me.

leftamark on December 8, 2015 at 9:25 AM

Into the Weeds time.

This was what I heard Trump say: Muslims cannot go to fight with Isis and then return to the United States.

This is what I heard Cruz say, quite awhile ago:
If you go to fight with ISIS you will lose your citizenship.

So, it is time for our candidates to work together on this issue because it is too important to fracture us over the semantics, and the MEDIA LOVES putting the sound bites of our candidates criticizing our various view and making it sound like GOP candidates AGREE with Obama…however they do it that is how it sounds to the uninitiated.

There is no room for Into the Weeds. Trump takes the bait easily from the media, who want him to fail, we need a GOP party line on terrorism, not a bunch of bozos all articulating the same thing with different baubles on it.

Fleuries on December 8, 2015 at 9:32 AM

I’m no Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m struggling to understand why this idea is so so so bad. Everyone on our side is treating it as the most insidious thing to suggest.

Maybe I’m just not a good American or something, but can someone please explain to me why it is so bad? I see no downside to the idea personally.

Thank you.

Darksean on December 8, 2015 at 9:39 AM

Trump and all of his supporters have convinced me that they are a greater threat to this country and its liberty than any Democrat. We need a leader who will use every power available to crush, destroy, and eliminate these people from this country.

TBSchemer on December 8, 2015 at 3:29 AM

Talk about fascism!

The anti-Trumpers want a fascist dictator to “crush” and “destroy” people who think that maybe we could use a timeout on Islamic immigration due to all of the atrocities.

Redstone on December 8, 2015 at 9:39 AM

Study Islam enough to know the awful things Muslims are required to believe and do, and consider their hero worship of a violent, conquer & loot and take sex slaves warlord “prophet”. We don’t need any such potentially dangerous dupes for Muhammad immigrating to America.
Dump the misplace sympathy for people whose absurd religion commands them to despise you the infidel, and forget the ignorance/lies of Bush, Obama, Cameron about Islam being a “religion of peace”. Let’s look out for ourselves for a change.

Chessplayer on December 8, 2015 at 9:41 AM

Wow, this thread evolved oddly since last night. Now it seems some folks think the world population has US constitutional rights.

Obviously there are problems referring or identifying people solely by their religion so maybe the US just puts a freeze on all immigration from Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia,…..nationals until we can get a process together to vet them properly.

tej on December 8, 2015 at 9:55 AM

I still have no idea why you think i’m blaming women if they’re raped, DFCtomm pointed out four reasons to deny people entrance to the US, all based on religion, that he seems to think are reasonable and i pointed out others are under no obligation to be reasonable in denying his religious rights in return.

clearbluesky on December 8, 2015 at 5:27 AM

So you think that the subjugation of women, forced conversions to islam, etc. is a religious right? You are damn right I’m going to deny their right to stone women to death for being raped or their right to mutilate women’s genitals.

I hold a right to life and liberty higher than your right to practice your religion as you see fit.

NWConservative on December 8, 2015 at 10:04 AM

Cruz, by the way, also wants to restrict Muslim immigration — but only a particular type, namely refugees, and only from Muslim countries like Iraq and Syria that contain “territory substantially controlled by a foreign terrorist organization.”

That would be almost all of them. Which muslim countries don’t have “territory substantially controlled by a terrorist organization”? I can point to Jordan. Maybe the UAE – depending on “territory” makes them tough to ban, since they have very little territory to start with, and I don’t recall decisions showing their gov’ts are terror supporters (off the top of my head). What other muslim countries don’t fit this criteria?

Obviously there are problems referring or identifying people solely by their religion

tej on December 8, 2015 at 9:55 AM

Not really. Especially not when their religion specifically seeks political domination and destruction of all other ways of life.
Unless of course you believe in cultural equality. But if you did, you would be an idiot, not conversant with reality.

GWB on December 8, 2015 at 10:09 AM

If Trump wants to suspend the 1st amendment…then Obama can suspend the 2nd amendment…

Or they can both ignore parts of the amendment…

That is the problem with Trump, he doesn’t think things through, he just throw out the red meat and lets the animals feast.

The problem with freedom of religion, speech, arms…they can be abused but we work out the problems to resolve with good leadership, not over the top speeches designed to inflame the public.

Obama does it with the 2nd amendment, Trump with the 1st

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 10:09 AM

I’m no Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m struggling to understand why this idea is so so so bad. Everyone on our side is treating it as the most insidious thing to suggest.

Maybe I’m just not a good American or something, but can someone please explain to me why it is so bad? I see no downside to the idea personally.

Thank you.

Darksean on December 8, 2015 at 9:39 AM

Well it’s bad and mean to block them from coming here for any reason, but if you want to bomb the SH##$@&T out of them, that’s great!!

-message brought to you by the GOP

NWConservative on December 8, 2015 at 10:09 AM

I’m no Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m struggling to understand why this idea is so so so bad. Everyone on our side is treating it as the most insidious thing to suggest.

Maybe I’m just not a good American or something, but can someone please explain to me why it is so bad? I see no downside to the idea personally.

Thank you.

Darksean on December 8, 2015 at 9:39 AM

Having a litmus test of what religion is “okay” and what religion is not is counter to the 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Which goes along with this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

Like free speech, sometimes it’s a pain that we have to listen to some garbage, but it’s their right…

Our constitution can never be allowed to be “bent” by the will of one leader…

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 10:22 AM

The problem with freedom of religion, speech, arms…they can be abused but we work out the problems to resolve with good leadership, not over the top speeches designed to inflame the public.
Obama does it with the 2nd amendment, Trump with the 1st

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 10:09 AM

“Convert or die”.
That sound like freedom of religion to you? Is that just an “abuse” of the 1st? Are you still under the illusion that Obama, under his “good leadership”, will try to work that problem out?
I will agree with you that Obama inflames a certain portion of the public with his speeches, just like Trump inflames another certain portion of the public.
One big difference–Obama has the power and desire to make his speeches Law. Trump does not.

leftamark on December 8, 2015 at 10:34 AM

Not really. Especially not when their religion specifically seeks political domination and destruction of all other ways of life.
Unless of course you believe in cultural equality. But if you did, you would be an idiot, not conversant with reality.

GWB on December 8, 2015 at 10:09 AM

You’re reading too deep into what I said. 1) Put 5 ME men in a line-up and have fun knowing for positive which is Muslim or any other religion….if they don’t want you to know! 2) Rather than announce to the world the US is closing immigration based on a religion then correct it to call out specific nationalities and then deal with other issues in the vetting process.

tej on December 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM

Right, thank you for responding. The problem with that argument in my mind is, people of other countries by definition don’t qualify for constitutional protection. On the flip side though, the government should protect its citizenry.

Darksean on December 8, 2015 at 10:44 AM

So you think that the subjugation of women, forced conversions to islam, etc. is a religious right? You are damn right I’m going to deny their right to stone women to death for being raped or their right to mutilate women’s genitals.

I hold a right to life and liberty higher than your right to practice your religion as you see fit.

NWConservative on December 8, 2015 at 10:04 AM

*sigh* Still playing this dishonest game? K. Fell free to point out where i said that, ill wait….

clearbluesky on December 8, 2015 at 11:00 AM

It wasn’t an insult. It was a statement of fact. Your logic is exactly like the “it makes us just like them” pacifist logic, and, fortunately, most people still recognize that is deranged.

fadetogray on December 8, 2015 at 7:39 AM

Well yes, if your complaint is that other countries don’t recognize natural rights and you don’t want to recognize natural rights then you are just like them, calling me deranged for pointing it out isn’t a statement of fact, it’s an insult.

clearbluesky on December 8, 2015 at 11:08 AM

I’m sure that someone already asked this question, but in case not …

The United States currently has a “De Facto” ban on middle eastern Christian refugees. Why is reversing or modifying the current refugee policy so unthinkable?

Just one easy question that no one in the press is asking.

PoliTech on December 8, 2015 at 11:27 AM

Like free speech, sometimes it’s a pain that we have to listen to some garbage, but it’s their right…

Our constitution can never be allowed to be “bent” by the will of one leader…

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 10:22 AM

Agreed… for American citizens. For everyone else, we don’t have to allow people that hate us or our culture into the country. We’d be pretty stupid to do it, don’t you think?

Immolate on December 8, 2015 at 11:29 AM

Well yes, if your complaint is that other countries don’t recognize natural rights and you don’t want to recognize natural rights then you are just like them, calling me deranged for pointing it out isn’t a statement of fact, it’s an insult.

clearbluesky on December 8, 2015 at 11:08 AM

I recognize the existence of the natural rights of Muslims we shouldn’t be letting into our country.

They have no natural right to enter our country. Sadly, they live in countries that have governments that won’t protect their natural rights.

YOU, on the other hand, wish to discard Americans’ natural right to band together in mutual self-defense against those people and countries that do not recognize any of our natural rights.

Again, for the third time, I will point out your “logic” is the same “if you do what they do, then you are just like them” derangement pacifists use.

If we follow your thinking, we had no right to violate the natural rights (the most fundamental one – the right to life) of German citizens we bombed in WWII, and we most certainly shouldn’t be bombing ISIS.

You are clearly as deranged as the pacifists are. Perhaps you are a pacifist. That would at least make you consistent.

fadetogray on December 8, 2015 at 11:30 AM

tej on December 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM

OK, concur on the practical difficulty.

GWB on December 8, 2015 at 11:45 AM

I recognize the existence of the natural rights of Muslims we shouldn’t be letting into our country.

No, you clearly don’t, there are thousands, if not millions of muslims who are simply going about their lives every day, just like you, their only concern being what their next meal will be, and you would deny them entrance into this country because of what someone else did. Your complaint should be against the government that isn’t capable of telling the good guys from the bad guys, not the schlub who’s just trying to feed his family from day to day. You don’t have to allow those non violent muslims into the country, but you should, they deserve a chance at a free life just like anybody else and if they blow that chance its their loss, but we’re still the better for trying to spread the ideals of individual freedom, even if that freedom comes with risk.

clearbluesky on December 8, 2015 at 12:12 PM

Well it’s bad and mean to block them from coming here for any reason, but if you want to bomb the SH##$@&T out of them, that’s great!!

-message brought to you by the GOP

NWConservative on December 8, 2015 at 10:09 AM

I’m stealing that.

DFCtomm on December 8, 2015 at 12:38 PM

Well yes, if your complaint is that other countries don’t recognize natural rights and you don’t want to recognize natural rights then you are just like them, calling me deranged for pointing it out isn’t a statement of fact, it’s an insult.

clearbluesky on December 8, 2015 at 11:08 AM

The problem is you are recognizing some worldly “Natural Rights” that you think exist? I guess you are referring to how you feel about humans on Earth? The world doesn’t owe anything to anybody much less provide rights across national borders. If you are a US citizen you might want to read the constitution to clear up what “rights” you actual have.

tej on December 8, 2015 at 12:39 PM

You don’t have to allow those non violent muslims into the country, but you should

Why? Why should I? What benefit does the country receive from that?

they deserve a chance at a free life just like anybody else

Then they can make one. Just like we did.

but we’re still the better for trying to spread the ideals of individual freedom, even if that freedom comes with risk.

clearbluesky on December 8, 2015 at 12:12 PM

How is letting them into our country spreading those ideals? And yes, freedom does come with risk. But *their* freedom shouldn’t necessarily come with risk to *us*.

Oh, and the bit about lots of muslims “just like us”: maybe. But I don’t have the problem of belonging to an ideology that preaches and practices violent subjection of others to its religion and its politics. They do. If they want to be treated as if they do NOT belong to said ideology, they either need to leave that ideology or they need to change that ideology. Until then, guilt by association is a very practical and sensible result.

GWB on December 8, 2015 at 12:42 PM

We’d be pretty stupid to do it, don’t you think?

Immolate on December 8, 2015 at 11:29 AM

Half the country is Suicidally delusional. We’ve become cows or sheep. Protected from nature for so long that we think it no longer applies to us.

DFCtomm on December 8, 2015 at 12:43 PM

Also he has many Muslim friends and they’re good people.

Some of my best friends are…

One of the most ridiculed comments ever made.

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 12:59 PM

Agreed… for American citizens. For everyone else, we don’t have to allow people that hate us or our culture into the country. We’d be pretty stupid to do it, don’t you think?

Immolate on December 8, 2015 at 11:29 AM

I didn’t say anything about how a person views us or supports or doesn’t support us, that’s a different issue.

It’s broadly using a “religious” litmus test that is so wrong.

People didn’t like the Irish, or the Italians…and we don’t want to repeat our internment camp history of WWII…

Individuals, no problem, but because they worship Allah, read the 1st amendment.

It was a stupid and foolish statement…unless you want to scrap the constitution and insert Trump as the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 1:02 PM

read the 1st amendment.

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 1:02 PM

You mean the first Amendment in The Constitution of the whole [email protected] world? Hmmm..I haven’t heard of that Constitution.

DFCtomm on December 8, 2015 at 1:08 PM

“Convert or die”.
That sound like freedom of religion to you? Is that just an “abuse” of the 1st? Are you still under the illusion that Obama, under his “good leadership”, will try to work that problem out?
I will agree with you that Obama inflames a certain portion of the public with his speeches, just like Trump inflames another certain portion of the public.
One big difference–Obama has the power and desire to make his speeches Law. Trump does not.

leftamark on December 8, 2015 at 10:34 AM

I am not an expert on their religion, apparently you are…

But the KKK used the bible to justify their actions, slavery is no problem for Jesus…and as far as the new testament and converting.

It’s mostly peaceful…but the old testament, the Muslim’s can quote that as their equal…

Luke 19:27…”But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.”

See the problem with taking things out of context?

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 1:13 PM

It’s mostly peaceful…but the old testament, the Muslim’s can quote that as their equal…

Luke 19:27…”But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.”

See the problem with taking things out of context?

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 1:13 PM

You get everything, and I mean everything 180 degrees out of whack. The Old Testament is about the Jews, so why do you hate Jews and Judaism so much?

DFCtomm on December 8, 2015 at 1:23 PM

If Trump wants to suspend the 1st amendment…then Obama can suspend the 2nd amendment…

Or they can both ignore parts of the amendment…

That is the problem with Trump, he doesn’t think things through, he just throw out the red meat and lets the animals feast.

The problem with freedom of religion, speech, arms…they can be abused but we work out the problems to resolve with good leadership, not over the top speeches designed to inflame the public.

Obama does it with the 2nd amendment, Trump with the 1st

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 10:09 AM

The 1st Amendment is a RIGHT acknowledged for American citizens. Vetting of refugees or potential immigrants to become American citizens is NOT a 1st Amendment issue. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Constitution should understand this.

dominigan on December 8, 2015 at 1:55 PM

Trump would even restrict the re-entry of citizens who are muslims. And we should. Especially “citizens” who visit places like Saudi Arabia, Pock-He-Ston and other hotbeds of terrorist islam. These people at the very least should not be allowed back into the United States until a THOROUGH investigation into their activities in those countries is completed, an investigation THEY must pay the cost of.

ConstantineXI on December 8, 2015 at 8:03 AM

Funny, until Trump came along, I had never ever heard of any candidate stating that when a government service is needed, those use it must also pay for it. Not only does it create a self-limiting form of government, it also makes it fiscally responsible.

I really like this idea.

You would think the “libertarians” would too… that is if they weren’t advocating for rounding us up and slaughtering us all.

dominigan on December 8, 2015 at 2:01 PM

I didn’t say anything about how a person views us or supports or doesn’t support us, that’s a different issue.

It’s broadly using a “religious” litmus test that is so wrong.

People didn’t like the Irish, or the Italians…and we don’t want to repeat our internment camp history of WWII…

Individuals, no problem, but because they worship Allah, read the 1st amendment.

It was a stupid and foolish statement…unless you want to scrap the constitution and insert Trump as the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.

right2bright on December 8, 2015 at 1:02 PM

I see your point, so I guess you’ve got a very thoughtful screening process that will separate the good Muslims from the terrorists? I’ll get a cup of coffee while you gather your materials.

DFCtomm on December 8, 2015 at 2:02 PM

v7_Shoe hardest hit.

On this thread as well!

v7_
That’s because you were hit hard on this thread as well. You’re a reality denying Idiot.
Daddy Issues on December 7, 2015 at 10:45 PM

Poor daddy issues hasn’t gotten enough attention this week. Try not to be so needy; Maybe Santa will bring you some self esteem.

V7_Sport on December 8, 2015 at 2:27 PM

Trump is a negotiator. He is ALWAYS negotiating. He ALWAYS starts high, way way high. He is relentless. He is NOT arguing with you, he is negotiating, so your arguing with him is wasting YOUR time. You can’t argue with success. “Build a wall AND make them pay for it” is a far better STARTING point than, Amnesty first then maybe we’ll get you a wall -NOT. So he has taken it from negotiating over Amnesty and NO wall, to a wall and NO Amnesty. So what if I end up paying for it, I got my wall. As for the immigrant Islamist, “Shut it all down” -well why not start the negotiations there? Or do you just want to argue?

And for the record: Our principals DO NOT include accommodating SLAVERY period. You have got to understand that the bedrock of ALL Islam is SLAVERY TO THE WILL OF ALLAH, and Allah’s will is singular, to further Islam! Islam (slavery) CANNOT exist in an INDIVIDUAL FREE WILL society. Islam CANNOT coexist with a democracy, for all the same reasons that slavery can’t. Islam will tolerate democracy, like it does with everything else, just long enough to subvert it, then destroy it.

Pole-Cat on December 8, 2015 at 3:06 PM

Talk about fascism!

The anti-Trumpers want a fascist dictator to “crush” and “destroy” people who think that maybe we could use a timeout on Islamic immigration due to all of the atrocities.

Redstone on December 8, 2015 at 9:39 AM

Trump is a fascist. Fighting against his violent methods (even to the point of using violence) does not make someone a fascist any more than fighting Hitler made Churchill a fascist.

TBSchemer on December 8, 2015 at 4:45 PM

The GOPe is calling for amnesty for ISIS because that is who we are as Americans

Brock Robamney on December 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 11 12 13