“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” a campaign press release said.
The last thing we need or want is for our government to engage in religious tests.
As opposed to Obama’s policy of letting everyone in?
As opposed to all the tests Christianity is put to for liberal hostility in public sphere.
The Don is very liberal on a lot of issues, why are we surprised he presents an entrenched liberal public policy of religious testing?
I just hope he does not get nomination.
It’s probably a tough pill to swallow for some but, Trump voices a lot of what may be the majority of Conservatives feelings. How else would you explain his popularity among them.
Pat,
Aside from Trump supporting the Clinton’s in the past, Real conservatives, like Rubio and Ryan are denouncing this.
Religious testing, to evict religious ideas and people from public square is a pure liberal policy.
Yes, the GOP is denouncing it. But just because a person is a conservative doesn’t make them an instant member of the GOP. Just as a person who professes to be a liberal isn’t necessarily a Democrat.
Plus, Kevin, I don’t think that Trumps feelings about Muslims is much different that yours.
Pat,
I only advocate similar treatment for all religions, global warming, Islam, evolutionists, etc. that liberals give to Christians in the public spere.
So testing for religion, in order to evict that religion from the public sphere, is well within the liberal lexicon.
I only seek the fairness liberals inflict on Christians.
So, you have absolutely no problem with Muslims. Good.
“The public sphere (German: Öffentlichkeit) is an area in social life where individuals can come together to freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action. Communication scholar Gerard Hauser has defined it as “a discursive space in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment about them.”
Talk about religion all you want Kevin. You have my permission.
Pat,
Well, that depends.
If they follow the “hateful” ideals spelled out in the jihad (the violent part) part of their religion….I have a problem. Those Muslims need to be neutralized.
If they don’t follow the ideals of the jihad, and are not serious about following the Muslim religion to its full fruition of jihad, I’d try to evangelize them from a hopeless existence to a one of hope through faith in Christ.
If public schools practice Muslim or global warming rituals in public school, but then evict the Christian perspective, I have a problem with the liberal censor cherry pickers.
Pat said,
“Communication scholar Gerard Hauser has defined it as “a discursive space in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment about them.””
This is NOT the free speech condition of the public sphere today.
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF14G83.pdf
“This is NOT the free speech condition of the public sphere today.”
What a cry baby you are. Blabbering about wanting fairness. What’s fair for one person is not for another.
As far as I’m concerned you can do and say what every you want. In fact I encourage you. This is America and everyone has the right to be wrong, including you.
Pat said,
“What a cry baby you are. Blabbering about wanting fairness. What’s fair for one person is not for another.”
That violates my “safe space”. If you were on a college campus and said that, you might have to take anti-micro agrression “training”.
Pat, the reality is: the speech police, and “religion testing” is everywhere. We need to point out what liberals are doing and carry it to it’s “fair” outcome, in hope we can restore freedom of speech again in this nation.
That is why the liberal Trump idea should be no big deal, it’s what liberals already do to Christians, just applying the liberal behavior to the precious liberal interest group: Muslims, global warming disciples, and evolutionists.
That violates my “safe space”.
Only if I came into your house and said it. Otherwise it’s an observation based on a witnessing a person who lives to be a victim, and that’s pathetic.
Pat,
I was kidding, mostly, about “safe space”.
Don’t worry, I’m not a delicate snowflake, I just like using liberal victimization tactics to demonstrate the absurdity of liberalism.
“Don’t worry, I’m not a delicate snowflake, I just like using liberal victimization tactics to demonstrate the absurdity of liberalism.”
No, you come across like a bombastic, self righteous, blowhard. Much like that of Donald Trump. Like you, he too thinks he’s right and everyone else is wrong.
Pat,
Does that mean I’ve reached the liberal academia ideal?
kevin:
“I’d try to evangelize them”
“global warming rituals”
“religion testing”
You whine about free speech, yet make comments like those above. Your arrogance knows no bounds.
Pat: Keep up the good work.
Baldy,
Those phrases are not within the realm of free speech?
Duly noted. I do miss those political correctness memos. I’m glad you are here to keep me informed.
What speech is allowed, or not allowed, would never be considered “arrogance” on your part?
Thanks for regulating me on this….I might say something to offend secular humanists.
No Kevin, it means you’ve reached the Donald Trump ideal. Or maybe I should say he’s reached your ideal.
kevin:
I’ll make it as plain as possible: You whime about impingements on free speech, yet you promote restricting free speech if it meets your standards of radical christian ideology. Hypocrite.
Baldy,
Not quite correct.
I advocate a total free speech standard.
However, as long as liberalism applies their censor standard in the public sphere to Christians and conservatives, I only advocate same standard be applied to liberals and their favorite religions.
It’s all about fairness. I cross the aisle on when it comes to fairness in this area. I’m bipartisan that way.
Pat,
I like my wording better. Fascinated by your spin on it though.
Well, we can do what the liberal icon did and put all muslims in internment camps.
FDR is revered by the liberals, so I would think these same liberals would want to emulate him and put muslims in internment camps.
Dan:
kevin would be all out for that.
kevin:
I’ll for free speech for all (as guaranteed by the constitution), and am not selective as you are.
Baldy,
I would not be at all for that.
I’m only for putting the violent and foreign combat enemy that we are at war with in prisoner of war camps.
kevin:
So you are OK with Gitmo? I thought you right wingers were against that policy?
Gitmo is for prisoners of war.
We are still at war, despite what our weak, surrendering, president thinks.
Prisoner of war camps, and “internment” camps, are 2 different things.
“We are still at war, despite what our weak, surrendering, president thinks.”
I’d like Congress to issue a declaration of war then. And I’d like members of the Chickhawk religion to participate.
Pat,
I’d support Congress declaring war against violent Islam/ISIS.
“I’d support Congress declaring war against violent Islam/ISIS.”
So why are they afraid??
Pat,
Good question.
Congress refuses to do their Constitutional duty and the President gets blamed for being weak. I’d say they are more to blame than the President.
Pat,
From the lens of U.S. history, it always has been the President’s job to lead and ask Congress for a formal declaration of war.
Has this weak President done that?
Yes
1
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the limited use of the United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. *** Whereas the terrorist organization that has referred to itself as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and
various other names (in this resolution referred to as ‘‘ISIL’’) poses a grave threat to
the people and territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, regional stability, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners; Whereas ISIL holds significant territory in Iraq and Syria and has stated its intention to seize more territory and demonstrated the capability to do so; Whereas ISIL leaders have stated that they intend to conduct terrorist attacks internationally, including against the United States, its citizens, and interests; Whereas ISIL has committed despicable acts of violence and mass executions against Muslims,
regardless of sect, who do not subscribe to ISIL’s depraved, violent, and oppressive ideology;
Whereas ISIL has threatened genocide and committed vicious acts of violence against religious and ethnic minority groups, including Iraqi Christian, Yezidi, and Turkmen populations; Whereas ISIL has targeted innocent women and girls with horrific acts of violence, including abduction, enslavement, torture, rape, and forced marriage; Whereas ISIL is responsible for the deaths of innocent United States citizens, including James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller; Whereas the United States is working with regional and global allies and partners to degrade and defeat ISIL, to cut off its funding, to stop the flow of foreign fighters to its ranks, and to support local communities as they reject ISIL; Whereas the announcement of the anti-ISIL Coalition on September 5, 2014, during the NATO Summit in Wales, stated that ISIL poses a serious threat and should be countered by a broad international coalition; Whereas the United States calls on its allies and partners, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, that have not already done so to join and participate in the anti-ISIL Coalition; Whereas the United States has taken military action against ISIL in accordance with its inherent right of individual and collective self-defense;
2
Whereas President Obama has repeatedly expressed his commitment to working with Congress to pass a bipartisan authorization for the use of military force for the anti-ISIL military campaign; and Whereas President Obama has made clear that in this campaign it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground instead of large-scale deployments of U.S. ground forces: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution
may be cited as the “
Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levan
t.”
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION.
—
The President is authorized, subject to the limitations in subsection (c), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5. (b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.
—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.
—
Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)). (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
—
Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.). (c) LIMITATIONS.
—
The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations. SEC. 3. DURATION OF THIS AUTHORIZATION. This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized. SEC. 4. REPORTS.
3
The President shall report to Congress at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization. SEC. 5. ASSOCIATED PERSONS OR FORCES DEFINED.
In this joint resolution, the term ‘‘associated persons or forces’’ means individuals and
organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. SEC. 6. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107
–
243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.
And on Sunday night in his address from the Oval Office he called on the Republican-controlled House and Senate to authorize the use of military force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
And I hear only crickets from the Republican held House and Senate.
Pat,
I don’t consider that a declaration of war, only a resolution to engage in limited military action.
With a President like George W, this resolution is enough to win. With this President, I don’t think this is enough, because he lacks will to win.
Spoken like a true Chicken Hawk.
Pat:
Don’t try and influence kevin with the facts. He is both a pathological liar and a first class chicken hawk.
But then he feels cheney/bush was a better president than Obama. Dope smoking, lying, draft avoiders with “other priorities”. That tells you something about kevins selective memory
Baldy,
You keep calling me a “liar”, but every time I ask you to point any “lie” out, you pass on the task.
Point out the specific “lie” and let’s discuss it. If I was wrong, I’m willing to correct the error.
I don’t know how to be more open to your brand of hyper-scrutiny than that.
kevin:
I have pointed out numerous falsehood written by you in the past. Own up to them like a man (assuming you are one). How about the serial lies you wrote concerning the Kewaskum POTW? Start there and we’ll work forward.
No lies there, just strong opinions of costly DNR regs making water unaffordable for the poor.
kevin:
And another big fib. You just can’t help yourself. Hint: DNR doesn’t set the rates. But you know that and persist with the lie.
DNR does set rates by the amount of ridiculous, unfair, unsustainable, and disgusting mandates they heap on the community at the threat of pulling the discharge permit and fines.
You would be the one with the lies by indicating DNR does not raise rates.
Without the last DNR sewer mandate, this community would not have raised the sewer rate 87%, which I voted no on, despite DNR threats to the community.
Kevin,
Under the Constitution
Congress needs no permission from the President to declare war
Article I. Section 8.
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:
sub paragraph 9 thru 18
To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:
To define and punish piracies and felonies commited on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
To provide and maintain a navy:
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may calling be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten square miles) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
kevin:
“DNR does set rates by the amount of ridiculous, unfair, unsustainable, and disgusting mandates they heap on the community at the threat of pulling the discharge permit and fines.” No they don’t. Lie #1
You would be the one with the lies by indicating DNR does not raise rates.” No they don’t. Lie #2
“Without the last DNR sewer mandate, this community would not have raised the sewer rate 87%, which I voted no on, despite DNR threats to the community” That isn’t the way it works. Lie #3
Provide proof to the contrary and I will retract and apologize (as I have offered in the past). But until you can prove what you say, you are making this stuff up to fit your radical agenda.
Pat,
Don’t dispute your point, but practice and U.S. tradition in past has been, a President leads by asking like FDR did.
Baldy,
For any of those statements to be lies would mean the DNR has no power to deny waste water permits, no power to fine or threaten individuals and communities.
Are you saying that statement is now untrue? I got 5 fellow board members that felt those threats intensely when they felt they had no choice to give into the DNR threats.
If so, what bridge are you selling me this A.m.
Kevin,
And Congress is Constitutionally obligated to authorize military action. But Congress has refused to because they are weak and afraid. Example, when Obama asked for authorization in Syria but Congress refused. Yet, they all cry, like you, when they think action should be taken but refuse to authorize, and like you,they’re all members of the Chicken Hawk religion.
kevin:
“would mean the DNR has no power to deny waste water permits”. That isn’t the way it works and you and your board know that. Or you really got screwed by the consulting engineer you hired. If you had an operating POTW they wouldn’t tell you to quit operation. Lie #4.
“Are you saying that statement is now untrue?”. I am saying your statement is untrue.
Baldy,
I’d like you to put that on DNR letterhead for me…clarifying that DNR wastewater permits and requirments are optional.
This is like the mob boss telling you there is nothing to see here as he is loading the heavy trash bag into the trunk.
Pat,
You raise a good point. I’d like Congress to act, but I understand the concerns of Congress. We have a leader with no will to win because he cannot even bring himself to say we are fighting Islamic terrorism.
Congress would like a plan with a leader that is willing to identify who we are fighting and a coherent plan to win…and a will to win.
Without that, I’d have concerns too.
Obama could get serious, bring himself to identify the enemy and commit to wiping them out by a declaration of war. Be as clear as the leader of France.
Once he gets off his lecture to us, that we are the problem, I’ll be a little more convinced.
It’s really his leadership that has lead to this divide.
Re-listen to FDR’s Pearl Harbor speech, that was a clear, unifying leader getting everyone on board to declare war.
George W also did a great job after 9/11 on same issue.
“George W also did a great job after 9/11 on same issue.”
By invading a sovereign country based on lies? Or are you talking about the other great things he did?
“You raise a good point. I’d like Congress to act, but I understand the concerns of Congress. We have a leader with no will to win because he cannot even bring himself to say we are fighting Islamic terrorism.”
If Congress would Declare War Obama would have to perform as Commander in Chief or he could be impeached.
Pat,
By protecting us from further terrorist attacks on our own soil. Message was sent with George W as president, we wil not stand for it.
Message sent by Obama, we will surrender and run. That is why ISIS rose to kill in this country and France.
We agree Congress should declare war, I just want Obama to lead on the declaration like FDR.
“By protecting us from further terrorist attacks on our own soil. Message was sent with George W as president, we wil not stand for it.”
Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. They were all Saudis that flew planes into the Twin Towers.
“We agree Congress should declare war, I just want Obama to lead on the declaration like FDR.”
And if Obama doesn’t what should Congress do? Use his lack of leadership as a reason for them doing nothing?
kevin:
“I’d like you to put that on DNR letterhead for me…clarifying that DNR wastewater permits and requirments are optional.”
You are being willfully ignorant and obtuse again. And I haven’t worked for DNR for years. Better yet, why don’t you actually take a look at your files, correspondence, talk to the consultant, read the WPDES permit and CEA/EA. Come up with some facts rather than continue with the ill-founded and ridiculous excuses for your poor understanding of the situation and system. Grow up, little guy.
kevin:
“Message sent by Obama, we will surrender and run”. Could you provide the source of that message, when he sent it, where is was broadcast? Maybe even a transcript. Be specific, provide proof.
Baldy,
The real world judges actions, not words.
Obama’s actions, unless you are a blind, non-judgemental fool, scream surrender and run to our enemies.
So the source is me articulating the painfully obvious in Iraq.
So you are making stuff up again. Pathetic.
And now you blame Iraq on Obama. What a short and selective memory you have.
To use Powells works ” you break it, you bought it”. cheney/bush own Iraq.