Replies

How in the hell does this have anything to do with allowing foreigner jihadist from terrorist producing countries into our country? Did I say there should be an unconstitutional crackdown on any peaceful American citizens religious freedoms? Did I say we should establish a Christian theocracy? Exactly how does stopping Islamic immigration have any effect on a persons religious freedoms? Our nation wasn't built on Islam, and that's kind of obvious by the percentage of Muslim Americans that our nations population has been made of throughout it's history.

Our founders didn't tell us we have an obligation to rapidly increase Muslim immigration in the very distant future, that also coincides with violent attacks in the country by foreign Muslims.

You're trying to use Jefferson to make up some kind of right that grants foreigners superiority over American citizens, and your using his support of religious freedom, which I support, but isn't connected to anything we have been debating.

Why are you even attempting to use Jefferson in a frivolous attempt to build a ridiculous case to begin with, while obviously being a supporter of laws that ease our Constitutional rights in the name of safety? That is a direct and blatant contradiction to Jefferson's beliefs. I don't think anyone is under any illusion that our government wouldn't potentially abuse this power.

I don't trust our massive tyrannical government, and don't want it's powers expanded to “protect” me. I don't want a police force, with a history of dangerous incompetence overall, taking over a city and conducting warrantless searches. You're steadfast support of Islamic immigration, along with throwing out our Constitution under any notion of danger, is creating most of the problem that you want to solve by loosening our privacy, as if our tyrannical government will always have good intentions, and that's just creating another problem.

WWW.OATHKEEPERS.ORG

Once again, here is your errant assertion:

"We could stop most terrorist attacks by securing our borders, and not inviting them into the country."

That silly assertion is clearly refuted by the facts. The fact is that there are numerous resident, American-born radicals, to whom the border is irrelevant.

Here's another example for you to ignore:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Islamic+recruitment+within+american+prisons

"You're steadfast support of Islamic immigration,"

It's your not you're. You're is a contraction between you and are "you are".

I don't have steadfast support of Islamic immigration - I simply recognize the fact that "securing the borders" won't stop ideological radicals from doing ideologically motivated radically stupid things -- things like becoming militant terrorists.

What was the impact of "Islamic immigration" and insecure borders upon the activities of ELF, the SLA, the Black Panthers, the terrorist Weather Underground, or, for that matter - The People's Front of Judea -- hmmm? ZERO?