Skip to comments.
Sekulow: Anyone Want to Argue Against Trump Travel Ban After UK Attack?
Fox News - Insider ^
| 22 May 2017 10:42pm
| staff
Posted on 05/22/2017 9:45:56 PM PDT by blueplum
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
we're getting aweful close to the last straw.
1
posted on
05/22/2017 9:45:56 PM PDT
by
blueplum
Has the cause of the explosion been determined?
Regardless, there are plenty of other hostilities that justify the immediate repatriation of all “refugees.”
2
posted on
05/22/2017 9:48:52 PM PDT
by
Gene Eric
(Don't be a statist!)
To: blueplum
The court seem to be dragging their feet on a potentially dangerous issue.
Has there been a terrorist attack in the US since Trump became President? I hesitate to even ask, but I don’t there has.
3
posted on
05/22/2017 9:51:20 PM PDT
by
be-baw
(still seeking)
To: blueplum
4
posted on
05/22/2017 9:57:56 PM PDT
by
Helicondelta
(Deplorable)
To: Gene Eric
the explosion was a jihadist blowing himself up
5
posted on
05/22/2017 10:05:00 PM PDT
by
blueplum
("...this moment is your moment: it belongs to you " President Donald J. Trump, Jan 20, 2017)
To: blueplum
apparently fox news wil largue because tonight they tried to claim that ‘radical terrorists’ are ‘infiltrating a religious movement’ ... in other words- it’s not muslims that were committing acts of terror, but lone wolf radicals masquerading as muslims-
Fox news appears to be in full cover-up mode and muslim apologist mode-
6
posted on
05/22/2017 10:08:37 PM PDT
by
Bob434
To: blueplum
I suspect this to be quashed in some way.
The explosion will be ruled to be either accidental or the act of a lone (non-muslim) madman.
And no, I won't believe it.
Just my .02
7
posted on
05/22/2017 10:09:40 PM PDT
by
ZOOKER
(Until further notice the /s is implied...)
To: blueplum
Thanks for the info. Was following the situation earlier, but no mention then of terrorism.
8
posted on
05/22/2017 10:23:52 PM PDT
by
Gene Eric
(Don't be a statist!)
To: Helicondelta
I wonder if Mr. “Bridges not Walls” Mayor eats his crow with gravy or chutney?
9
posted on
05/22/2017 10:35:14 PM PDT
by
blueplum
("...this moment is your moment: it belongs to you " President Donald J. Trump, Jan 20, 2017)
To: blueplum
What may have *really* happened is CINC forced those 7 countries not to allow any flights here, then wrote the EO,
Are we about to learn the MAN jihadi *just* flew in?
10
posted on
05/22/2017 10:40:35 PM PDT
by
txhurl
(Time to blow the Queen and King off the board, DJT, and by your birthday, or on it!)
To: blueplum
I don’t think the leftists and wimps opposed to the travel ban will be moved by yet another terrorist attack.
11
posted on
05/22/2017 10:57:14 PM PDT
by
luvbach1
(I hope Trump runs roughshod over the inevitable obstuctionists, Dems, progs, libs, or RINOs!)
To: blueplum
Were there any justice in the world, that ‘mayor’ would be eating his meal of crow with a thick sauce of aesofoetida.
12
posted on
05/22/2017 11:33:04 PM PDT
by
GladesGuru
(Islam Delenda Est. Because of what Islam is - and because of what Muslims do.)
To: blueplum
Trump should re-introduce his Muslim Ban in a press conference immediately after the next Muslim mass murder in the U.S.
13
posted on
05/23/2017 12:37:20 AM PDT
by
Arthur McGowan
(https://youtu.be/IYUYya6bPGw)
To: blueplum
Sekulow is asking the wrong question here. The role of a judge is to make a decision based on the law, not on some emotional response to an event somewhere else in the world. The danger in this particular case is that the facts may end up working
against the travel ban -- if it turns out the perpetrator was a British citizen, for example.
I think it would be absolutely appropriate, however, for someone to stick a microphone in Ariana Grande's face at her next public appearance and ask her what she thinks of Trump's travel ban.
To: Arthur McGowan
Unfortunately, President Trump has probably lost all credibility on this particular issue. He just spent a couple of days getting the royal treatment in Saudi Arabia,
which was the home country of most of the 9/11 hijackers. A few people here on FreeRepublic astutely pointed out that a U.S. travel ban to defend against radical Islamic terrorists was utterly pointless if Saudi Arabia was not among the countries covered by Trump's executive order.
To: blueplum
I don’t even know why this is in the courts. The law states that the President can ban “ANY CLASS” of people from coming in, which means that he can ban Muslims. Maybe there’s an exclusion addressing religion but I didn’t see it.
16
posted on
05/23/2017 3:45:03 AM PDT
by
MayflowerMadam
("If we cannot control our tempers, what has grace done for us?" Charles Spurgeon)
To: Alberta's Child
--
A few people here on FreeRepublic astutely pointed out that a U.S. travel ban to defend against radical Islamic terrorists was utterly pointless if Saudi Arabia was not among the countries covered by Trump's executive order. --
LOL. Astute? What's the logic? If you can't stop most? If you can't stop all? then it's pointless to stop some?
17
posted on
05/23/2017 3:48:57 AM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: Alberta's Child
Unlike 2001, in 2017 any hijackers won’t have the backing of the President of the U.S.
18
posted on
05/23/2017 3:52:02 AM PDT
by
Arthur McGowan
(https://youtu.be/IYUYya6bPGw)
To: blueplum
Muslims are the tools and channels of terrorism.
The socialists who bring them into human civilization are the cause of terrorism.
19
posted on
05/23/2017 4:03:55 AM PDT
by
meadsjn
To: Cboldt
If a travel ban aimed at defending the U.S. against terrorist attacks doesn’t include a nation that is the hotbed of radical Islam, then it is pointless. It is basically the equivalent of banning travel from enemy countries during World War II and leaving Nazi Germany off the list.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson