Posted on 11/19/2015 7:23:03 AM PST by House Atreides
I don’t have to be a Catholic to make this statement. Are you listening to Pope Francis??? Are you listening to the Bishops across the country??? My accountant, for heaven’s sakes, brought this up as an aside about 3 or 4 years ago to be in favor of this kind of unfettered immigration, only it was from Latin America at that time. I was really surprised. I asked him if he is Catholic, and he said yes, that this was discussed at his church. If it isn’t an issue in your community and at your church, good. Ask your priest if he thinks I am wrong in what I am saying. The Methodists, Episcopalians and the Presbyterians seem to be more worried about LGBT issues (heaven help them). Words and actions must match to have integrity. Just because words don’t get spoken, doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church leadership is not working hand in hand to eliminate borders and national sovereignty - that means mass chaos around the world. I wish it were not so.
You do not think we would have a different commander in chief, the most important job of the President? Really?
If Ryan’s all in on Muslims, Romney won’t be far behind. They all dance to the tune of the Globalists. Obama. McCain. Romney. Clinton.
I guess we interpret data and actions differently. I guess Romney would have announced the timetable and pulled out troops. I guess Romney would have had a Secretary of State like a Hillary Clinton. I guess Romney would have not listened to his generals’ advice about prosecuting the war. I guess Romney would have secretly sent weapons that ended up in the hands of Isis. I guess Romney would have signed the nuke deal with Iran and given them 250 billion to fund terrorism. I guess Romney would have traded Bergdahl for the release of terrorists. I guess Romney would have denied increased security for Benghazi and then created the false narrative about a video.
And I guess that this video must have been a fake -—
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/mitt-romney-strategy-to-fight-jihad/
TRANSCRIPT: “It’s this century’s nightmare. Jihadism. Violent, radical, Islamic fundamentalism. Their goal is to unite the world under a single jihadist caliphate. To do that, they must collapse freedom-loving nations like us.
As President, I’ll strengthen our intelligence services. Increase our military by at least 100,000. And monitor the calls al Qaeda makes into America.
And we can and will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
You answer my challenge with this: “If Ryan’s all in on Muslims, Romney won’ be far behind.”
We don’t disagree on what would have been Romney’s RINO domestic agenda. But I have been specifically talking about commander in chief.
Really, Laz? Really? That is the best you have? I guess we will just have to disagree about how the commander in chief and strength of this country as leader of the free world would be different. Keep believing what you choose to believe.
Very well put!!
“House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)58% is ruling out making any cuts to Muslim immigration. “
Then Ryan needs to be removed as Speaker immediately.
We cannot afford to have dangerous fools in powerful positions.
We were expecting anything else from RINO Ryan?
This is copied from my initial reply to you: “I certainly see religion mentioned several times. Though it doesn’t mean a litmus test solely based on religion needs to be applied, there certainly can be and is one if that is the claim being made by the applicant (that they are fleeing because of religious persecution).”
And...
“Also, look at all the Coptic Christians being denied who are legitimately making that exact claim.”
And...
“Regardless, a litmus test is being applied by Obama regarding Copts. He is a liar, a hypocrite and a general DB with regard to his statements towards anyone who disagrees with him.”
Those are the exact things I said, I don’t believe I claimed what you say I did.
Furthermore, what part of the law says we can’t apply a litmus test of any sort? The law just points out guideline within which we can apply the law - it doesn’t say we can’t refuse based on any of those items.
Do you honestly think we should allow anyone in making the claim regardless of what they believe or where they are from because this chunk of federal code says we can consider it?
That is tantamount to what you are arguing here even though you claim otherwise in at least one other post to me.
I’m not arguing against you. I AGREE with you. We shouldn’t let a single one of these refugees in for security reasons.
All I’ve been saying is that the law you quoted (and the article that quoted it) is being misread. Period. It mentions religion but not in the context you (and that author) are trying to make it fit. You agreed with that earlier.
Now, is there a law that says we can’t apply a litmus test? Not that I know of and maybe we should. That’s not what we’re discussing here though, is it? We’re talking about what the law in the article says. If you want to move the discussion to a different topic, go ahead.
The code we are talking about neither necessarily requires a religious litmus test, nor does it deny anyone the ability to apply one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.