Liberal hypocrites never complained when Obama conducted the largest illegal immigration raid in U.S. history
You know all those liberals who are complaining about how Trump just conducted a raid on 683 illegal immigrants?
Those same liberals were silent after Obama conducted a raid on 3,168 illegal immigrants during the last week of March, 2012. It was the largest illegal immigration raid in U.S. history.
Hypocrite liberals said nothing after Obama detained Ibtihaj Muhammad, a law abiding, Muslim, U.S. citizen, who was born in New Jersey, and who won an Olympic medal
If Trump had done this, liberals would be – justifiably so – heavily outraged.
But because this was done by Obama, liberals said nothing.
Barack Obama in 2005: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked”
When ABC News re-aired a live interview with a refugee, they edited out the part where the refugee said he liked Trump
During a live interview which was originally aired on CNN, a refugee said he liked Trump.
But when ABC News later re-aired the interview, they edited out the part where the refugee said he liked Trump.
Media bias at its finest.
Starbucks recently announced that it will hire 10,000 refugees worldwide over the next five years.
I agree with Starbucks.
It is extremely important for refugees to be assimilated into their new home. Besides learning the language of their new home, obtaining a job is the most important part of this assimilation.
Refugees – real refugees, that is – are fleeing from horrifying atrocities that most of us cannot comprehend.
A real refugee is someone who is very much opposed to the policies of the country from which they fled. A real refugee does not try to turn their new home into the same kind of hellhole from which they fled.
For example, consider this story of real refugee Brigitte Gabriel:
Brigitte Gabriel, born October 21, 1964, is a conservative American journalist, author, political lecturer, anti-Islamic activist, and founder of two non-profit political organizations, the American Congress For Truth and ACT! for America. She has given hundreds of lectures and frequently speaks at American conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, Christians United for Israel, Evangelicals, and Jewish groups.
Her sometimes controversial statements include that Islam keeps countries backward and that it teaches terrorism.
Brigitte Gabriel was born in the Marjeyoun District of Lebanon to a Maronite Christian couple, a first and only child after over twenty years of marriage. She recalls that during the Lebanese Civil War, Islamic militants launched an assault on a Lebanese military base near her family’s house and destroyed her home. Gabriel, who was ten years old at the time, was injured by shrapnel in the attack. She says that she and her parents were forced to live underground in all that remained, an 8-by-10-foot (2.4 by 3.0 m) bomb shelter for seven years, with only a small kerosene heater, no sanitary systems, no electricity or running water, and little food. She says she had to crawl in a roadside ditch to a spring for water to evade Muslim snipers.
According to Gabriel, at one point in the spring of 1978, a bomb explosion caused her and her parents to become trapped in the shelter for two days. They were eventually rescued by three Christian militia fighters, one of whom befriended Gabriel but was later killed by a land mine.
Gabriel wrote that in 1978 a stranger warned her family of an impending attack by the Islamic militias on all Christians. She says that her life was saved when the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in Operation Litani. Later, when her mother was seriously injured and taken to an Israeli hospital, Gabriel was surprised by the humanity shown by the Israelis, in contrast to the constant propaganda against the Jews she saw as a child. She says of the experience:
“I was amazed that the Israelis were providing medical treatment to Palestinian and Muslim gunmen…These Palestinians and Muslims were sworn, mortal enemies, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. Yet, Israeli doctors and nurses worked feverishly to save their lives. Each patient was treated solely according to the nature of his or her injury. The doctor treated my mother before he treated an Israeli soldier lying next to her because her injury was more severe than his. The Israelis did not see religion, political affiliation, or nationality. They saw only people in need, and they helped.”
Brigitte Gabriel is a real refugee. She has assimilated very well. She has not tried to turn the U.S. into the same kind of hellhole form which she fled. I support letting real refugees like her into the U.S.
I will gladly support the U.S. taking in one million real refugees like her each and every year.
By comparison, a fake refugee is someone who refuses to assimilate, and instead, tries to turn their new home into the same kind of hellhole from which they fled.
There are plenty of fake refugees living in the city of Hamtramck, Michigan. The reason that I call them fake refugees instead of real refugees is because instead of assimilating into their new home, they are passing laws that force their way of life on to the long term residents of their new home.
According to this article from the Washington Post, Hamtramck is the first Muslim majority city in the U.S., and Muslims make up the majority of its city council. So far, this Muslim majority city council has done at least two things to force the rest of the city to adopt the Muslim way of life.
First, the city council banned business owners within 500 feet of any of the city’s mosques from obtaining a liquor license.
Secondly, the city gave all of these mosques an exemption from the city’s noise ordinance, so they can use electronic amplification to loudly broadcast the Muslim call to prayer five times a day, every day. Residents who live near these mosques have complained that this wakes them up at 6 a.m.
It is because of these two things – things where the Muslims have used the government to force their way of life on to unwilling participants – that I refer to them as fake refugees instead of real refugees.
If liberals want U.S. citizens to be more tolerant of refugees, then I suggest that liberals put an end to this kind of nonsense, instead of supporting it, as they currently do.
I support taking in real refugees – the kind who want to assimilate, and who would never try to turn their new home into the kind of hellhole from which they have fled.
I have nothing against real refugees who want to practice Islam on their own, without forcing it on to unwilling participants.
But when fake refugees use the government to force their way of life onto the long term residents of their new home, such as by banning liquor licenses in their new home, and by using electronic amplification to loudly force their call to prayer into the homes of unwilling participants who are trying to sleep, then no, I don’t want them – these fake refugees – in our country.
If liberals want people to be more welcoming to refugees, then liberals need to acknowledge this distinction between real refugees and fake refugees.
Trump’s immigration ban is already harming American science
Iranian scientists have been a major boon to everything from Mars exploration to Ebola-fighting to advanced mathematics.
January 29, 2017
Samira Asgari had been preparing for the trip for months. She had just earned her Ph.D. from a Swiss university and was ready to start a postdoctoral fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, studying how a person’s genes affect our response to tuberculosis. But on Saturday morning, at Frankfurt Airport, she was intercepted by an American consulate, who stopped her from boarding her plane to Boston. “He said that it’s the U.S. government who issues the visa, and if they change their mind, the visa isn’t valid,” she says.
They had indeed changed their mind. On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order banning citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen—from entering America under any visa, for at least 120 days. Asgari, who is Iranian, was sent back to Switzerland. Having given up her apartment in anticipation of the move, she has nowhere to stay. To make matters worse, her luggage is missing.
Liberal hypocrites never complained about how Obama’s Syrian refugee policy discriminated against Christians
Liberals – justifiably so – have been complaining about how Trump wants to discriminate against Muslim immigrants.
However, these same liberals were completely silent when Obama discriminated against Christian immigrants.
However, on November 30, 2015, it was reported that during the previous two weeks (i.e., the two weeks immediately after Islamic terrorists murdered 130 people in Paris) of the 132 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration had admitted into the U.S., 100% of them were Muslim, and 0% of them were Christian.
But there was not a peep from liberals about this religious discrimination.
In May 2016, the Obama administration admitted 1,035 Muslim refugees from Syria into the U.S., but only two Christian refugees from that same country.
Again, silence from liberals regarding this religious discrimination.
From early to mid August 2016, the Obama administration admitted 1,575 Muslim refugees from Syria into the U.S., but only 12 Christian refugees from that same country.
And again, no complaints from liberals about this religious discrimination.
Sheikh Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi is a Muslim preacher from Syria who has called for homosexuals to be executed. In March 2014, Obama gave him a visa so he could spread his message to mosques in 17 U.S. cities.
This one is especially concerning. Why did Obama want this guy in the U.S.?
For a lot more nonsense like this from Obama, please see this blog post that I wrote, which is called “Here are 36 reasons why I would not be surprised if Obama wanted Iran to destroy Israel.”
Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal
January 27, 2017
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.
But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.
That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded all Chinese, almost all Japanese, then all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created a comprehensive “national-origins system,” skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.
Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that “the harsh injustice” of the national-origins quota system had been “abolished.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.
Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.
Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was Mr. Trump’s original proposal.
While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued to be admitted in 1980.
While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked the policy.
The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a “rational link” with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, “We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications.”
To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state that “procedures” and “locations” for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.
Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress’s vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped President Barack Obama’s executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America’s constitutional system.
Video shows the U.S. president groping a woman. But the President is Clinton, not Trump, so the political left is perfectly OK with it.
Here’s a video of the U.S. President groping a woman, when he mistakenly thought the camera was turned off.
If this was President Trump, the political left would, justifiably so, be very upset.
But it’s not President Trump. It’s President Clinton. And to those on the political left, that makes it perfectly acceptable.
Also, note the ABC News logo on the bottom right corner. The video’s description at YouTube refers to the video as “uncovered ABC footage,” which suggests that it was never aired at all, on any local or national news broadcast. If this had been Trump, the national mainstream media would be playing this clip all across the country, day and night, for a very long time. But since it’s Clinton, that kind of media exposure didn’t happen, so almost no one knows about it. Media bias at its finest.
Linda Sarsour organized the recent women’s march.
Below is a screen capture of a tweet that she made, which says the following:
“10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”
And this woman is a role model for millions of U.S. women?
In my opinion, that’s pretty scary.
She also made this tweet, which says
“shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics”
and this tweet, which says
“You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?”
and this tweet, which says
“If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America.”
So there you have it. Millions of U.S. women support a woman who wants the U.S. to adopt a legal system that bans women from driving cars, prohibits women from appearing alone in public, calls for girls to have their genitals mutilated, and gives a woman’s testimony in court only half the value of a man’s.
Of course, immigration patterns prove that women overwhelmingly prefer living in the U.S. over Saudi Arabia. I’ve never heard of any woman who was born in the U.S. who chose to permanently move to Saudi Arabia. But I have heard of plenty of women who were born in Saudi Arabia who chose to permanently move to the U.S.
Sarsour herself was born in Brooklyn. I’m glad she was born in the U.S., because she has far more rights and freedoms here than she would in Saudi Arabia. It’s too bad that she mistakenly thinks that women women are better off in Saudi Arabia than in the U.S. I hope she will reconsider her position.
Huffington Post says it’s “Islamophobic” to say women’s march organizer Linda Sarsour supports Sharia law, but doesn’t mention her tweets that support Sharia law
The Gateway Pundit recently published this article about Linda Sarsour, who organized the recent women’s march against Donald Trump. The article states that Sarsour supports Sharia law, and as evidence, includes these two tweets:
The Huffington Post responded by publishing this article, which says that the Gateway Pundit and other websites had
“… deployed classic Islamophobic tactics in trying to discredit Sarsour, claiming… that she supports the spread of Sharia in the U.S….”
Nowhere in that article does the Huffington Post actually say anything about Sarsour’s two tweets.