Jesus’ Answer To President Trump’s Immigration Ban
- Thread starter MessageOfTheCross
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Thank you so much for your concern for me and my well being. I am very touched by your humble, meek and obviously righteous understanding of my plight. You are a pillar of virtue and discernment and meekness. But I already said that so now I'm repeating myself. Anyway, you are awesome and I admire and respect you to the moon and back, so your analysis of me is very much noted, internalized and appreciated.
Last edited:
* Shiia are a majority there
Previously you mentioned Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and I neglected to reply to this specific matter. Note that he is an Iraqi Shiia who, like so many Iraqis, viewed Bush's invasion as foreign imperialism and terrorism. While many on the far right in the USA believe Bush was a hero, the vast majority of people throughout the world (and in Iraq) saw him as the closest thing to Hitler. Because of the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who died because of Bush's evils, people like al-Sadr spoke hostile words towards the USA. The same words people spoke when Osama bin Laden attacked and killed Americans.
Americans fail to understand that many people in those two countries view themselves first and foremost as Shiia or as Sunni. The borders which created Iraq and Iran were largely drawn by European powers and are not respected by some people who live in those lands. The presence of Iranians there is welcome by Iraqis who do not see them as foreigners. They view them as Shiia allies in the quest to remove imperialistic forces such as the USA and its few remaining allies there (you might remember them as the 'Coalition of the Willing').
You must understand that the USA is not viewed as the heroes in all of these Middle Eastern conflicts. Its imperialistic government, like those of Europe, caused the problems in that region as we have discussed enough times on this forum: https://sethfrantzman.com/2014/09/05/how-the-west-is-responsible-for-all-the-problems-in-the-middle-east/
People in that region have been the victims of this imperialism. Troubles that were created in the West. Therefore, do not expect them to love the USA or any other Western government.
The truth is, the Iranian-backed Shiite militias are no less calloused and inhumane than their Islamic State rivals. The two share equally revolutionary goals for the nation of Iraq. Both are seeking to
control the nation as part of an Islamic superstate—one wants it Sunni and one wants it Shiite.
Both are willing to walk over civilian corpses to achieve it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr
Muqtada al-Sadr gained popularity in Iraq following the toppling of the Saddam
government by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Al-Sadr has on occasion stated that
he wishes to create an "Islamic democracy".
Al-Sadr commands strong support (especially in the Sadr City district in Baghdad, formerly named
Saddam City but renamed after the elder al-Sadr). After the fall of the Saddam government in 2003,
Muqtada al-Sadr organized thousands of his supporters into a political movement, which includes a
military wing known as the Jaysh al-Mahdi or Mahdi Army).[9]
The name refers to the Mahdi, a long-since disappeared Imam who is believed by
Shi'a Muslims to be due to reappear when the end of time approaches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi
In Islamic eschatology, the Mahdi is the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will rule
for five, seven, nine, or nineteen years (according to differing interpretations)[1][2]
before the Day of Judgement (yawm al-qiyamah, literally, the Day of Resurrection)[3]
and will rid the world of evil.[4]
Mahdi Army
This group has periodically engaged in violent conflict with the United States and other
Coalition forces, while the larger Sadrist movement has formed its own religious courts,
and organized social services, law enforcement, and prisons in areas under its control[10]
His strongest support comes from the class of dispossessed Shi'a, like in the Sadr City area
of Baghdad. Many Iraqi supporters see in him a symbol of resistance to foreign occupation.[11]
The Mahdi army operated deaths squads that frequently killed Sunni civilians
particularly during the civil war phase of the Iraq war.
-
October 4, 2010
The radical Sadrist bloc has thrown its weight behind the current prime minister.
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/7525.8.0.0/world/government/iraq-moves-closer-to-forming-
government
The National Review Online says that the Sadrists’ support of Maliki puts him on the verge of
forming a governing coalition, which would be “close to the worst possible outcome of the Iraqi
election and the aftermath.”
Sadr is the anti-U.S. cleric who only a few years ago led the bloody uprisings against American
forces and was responsible for some of the worst violence in Iraq. Whether radical outlaw or
political kingmaker, Sadr—under the guidance of Iran—has always had as his goal the expulsion
of U.S. troops and influence from Iraq.
He granted his first major Western television interview to Bob Simon of
60 Minutes, in which al-Sadr famously said "Saddam was the little serpent,
but America is the big serpent.
-
Last year, the firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr
called for his supporters to kill American troops.
U.S. Military: At least 80K Iranian-Backed Shiite Fighters Are in Iraq - Breitbart-
troops-iraq/
-
May 2016 Iraq’s Volatile Parliamentary Reform
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/13867.2.0.0/middle-east/iraqs-volatile-parliamentary-reform
In the early days of the 21st century, Sadr was known as a violent extremist. He commanded a
private force called the Mahdi Army. This 50,000-strong militia roamed the streets of Baghdad,
murdering Sunnis and those who had been a part of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The civil war that
raged between the Sunnis and Shiites was largely the result of Sadr’s Mahdi Army running rampant.
There is little wonder why many call Sadr the most dangerous man in Iraq. His political backflips
ensure nobody knows which way he will head next. And the Iraq of today allows him to get away
with it. Deutsche Welle reported:
Iraq still has no government. At a time when the soul of the citizenry is boiling with anger over
rampant corruption, the war on terror is robbing the country of its last resources. Oil prices are
in free fall and seem to be dragging the economy into the abyss along with them.
The time seems ripe for demagogues.
But if there has been one constant in Sadr’s life—one thing that will keep him close to the Shiite
populace and distant from the minorities, the one trait that keeps him inexorably tied to Iran—
it is his religious beliefs, A Shiite at Heart
Basically Sadr supported Maliki, then he didn’t. Then he supported Iran, then he couldn’t.
He was a radical hard-liner, then he wasn’t. He promised to leave politics, then he wouldn’t.
Now he supports Abadi.
Al-Monitor published an article calling Sadr the chameleon of Iraqi politics. It pointed out the
Sadrist movement’s hypocrisy. “Ironically, the Sadrist movement was a main participant in corrup-
tion and a contributor in the failures that Sadr’s followers were demonstrating against with other
protesters—he was part of the government while concurrently opposing said government,” it said.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...hiite-leader-muqtada-al-sadr-protests-demands-
reform.html
-
Retaking Fallujah
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/13945.19.0.0/world/terrorism/retaking-fallujah
Not only do the citizens of Fallujah have to fear their Islamic State captors
but also the incoming liberators.
The well-known brutality of the Iranian-backed Shiite militias is now descending on the city of
Fallujah and its remaining 50,000 residents. The government-sanctioned Popular Mobilization
Force that tortured the residents of Tikrit and murdered civilians in mass revenge killings is
now on Fallujah’s doorstep.
-
August 12th, 2016
Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general who commands the Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Quds
Force and has been linked to the death of nearly 500 Americans, is now on the ground in Iraq
ahead of an upcoming offensive to retake Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, reports the Long
War Journal.
Qassem Soleimani to play “major role” in Mosul operations | FDD's Long War Journal-
operations.php
-
the Iraqi chameleon and his Iranian allies will continue to work toward a strong
Shiite-dominated Iraq and the rise of the new Middle East power, the king of the south.
Iran wants political control, and the promotion of Shiite interests, both at home and abroad.
Regardless of what he says or who he allegedly supports, Sadr’s religious beliefs define him.
He may change his political colors every other week, he may change his public image to boost
his popularity, but his Shiite upbringing leads to an inevitable conclusion: At the end of the day,
Sadr must support Iran.
Iran has nothing to lose by seeing Sadr get his way. Even if he supports a technocratic govern-
ment, Sadr has shown himself time and again to be pro-Iranian—though he may claim otherwise.
If a technocratic government is successfully installed, it will undoubtedly be vetted by Sadr—
the real power in the nation. This could finally bring a stable pro-Shiite government to Iraq—
something that Iran has striven for throughout the last decade.
If it fails and the nation descends to squabbling again, then Iran loses nothing. The nation’s
political system is already in shambles. If anything, a descent into 2006–2007-style chaos may
afford Iran more opportunity to increase its influence.
Whether a technocratic government is elected or not, the Iraqi chameleon and his Iranian
allies will continue to work toward a strong Shiite-dominated Iraq and the rise of the
new Middle East power, the king of the south.
-
25 Jan 2017- Shiite Iraqi Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr: U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem ‘A Declaration of War’
Muqtada al-Sadr: U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem 'A Declaration of War'-
declaration-war-islam/
Relocating the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would amount to a
“declaration of war against Islam” that would require the formation of an armed group to liberate
the holy city, said prominent Shiite Iraqi cleric and powerful militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr.
U.S. President Donald Trump, in a break with previous administrations, has vowed
to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the American embassy there
Sadr called for the “formation of a special division to liberate Jerusalem were the decision
to be implemented” and urged the Cairo-based Arab League, as well as the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation, the world’s leading pan-Islamic body, to either take decisive action on
the issue or disband themselves.
-
Muqtada al-Sadr’s return
■Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi wants to reshuffle his endemically corrupt cabinet
in Baghdad. But so does the radical Muqtada al-Sadr.
■Unlike Prime Minister Abadi, Sadr wants a complete overhaul of the Iraqi parliament
and the quota system of its power-sharing government. This will benefit the Shiites—
and Sadr is a Shiite cleric and militant leader.
■During the early years of the Iraqi War, Sadr’s Mahdi Army terrorized coalition forces.
And when he got into trouble with the United States, his supporters in Iran provided him refuge.
■Now he’s back, and his political clout appears stronger than ever.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-04/can-a-demagogue-help-save-iraq-s-democracy
control the nation as part of an Islamic superstate—one wants it Sunni and one wants it Shiite.
Both are willing to walk over civilian corpses to achieve it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr
Muqtada al-Sadr gained popularity in Iraq following the toppling of the Saddam
government by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Al-Sadr has on occasion stated that
he wishes to create an "Islamic democracy".
Al-Sadr commands strong support (especially in the Sadr City district in Baghdad, formerly named
Saddam City but renamed after the elder al-Sadr). After the fall of the Saddam government in 2003,
Muqtada al-Sadr organized thousands of his supporters into a political movement, which includes a
military wing known as the Jaysh al-Mahdi or Mahdi Army).[9]
The name refers to the Mahdi, a long-since disappeared Imam who is believed by
Shi'a Muslims to be due to reappear when the end of time approaches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi
In Islamic eschatology, the Mahdi is the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will rule
for five, seven, nine, or nineteen years (according to differing interpretations)[1][2]
before the Day of Judgement (yawm al-qiyamah, literally, the Day of Resurrection)[3]
and will rid the world of evil.[4]
Mahdi Army
This group has periodically engaged in violent conflict with the United States and other
Coalition forces, while the larger Sadrist movement has formed its own religious courts,
and organized social services, law enforcement, and prisons in areas under its control[10]
His strongest support comes from the class of dispossessed Shi'a, like in the Sadr City area
of Baghdad. Many Iraqi supporters see in him a symbol of resistance to foreign occupation.[11]
The Mahdi army operated deaths squads that frequently killed Sunni civilians
particularly during the civil war phase of the Iraq war.
-
October 4, 2010
The radical Sadrist bloc has thrown its weight behind the current prime minister.
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/7525.8.0.0/world/government/iraq-moves-closer-to-forming-
government
The National Review Online says that the Sadrists’ support of Maliki puts him on the verge of
forming a governing coalition, which would be “close to the worst possible outcome of the Iraqi
election and the aftermath.”
Sadr is the anti-U.S. cleric who only a few years ago led the bloody uprisings against American
forces and was responsible for some of the worst violence in Iraq. Whether radical outlaw or
political kingmaker, Sadr—under the guidance of Iran—has always had as his goal the expulsion
of U.S. troops and influence from Iraq.
He granted his first major Western television interview to Bob Simon of
60 Minutes, in which al-Sadr famously said "Saddam was the little serpent,
but America is the big serpent.
-
Last year, the firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr
called for his supporters to kill American troops.
U.S. Military: At least 80K Iranian-Backed Shiite Fighters Are in Iraq - Breitbart-
troops-iraq/
-
May 2016 Iraq’s Volatile Parliamentary Reform
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/13867.2.0.0/middle-east/iraqs-volatile-parliamentary-reform
In the early days of the 21st century, Sadr was known as a violent extremist. He commanded a
private force called the Mahdi Army. This 50,000-strong militia roamed the streets of Baghdad,
murdering Sunnis and those who had been a part of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The civil war that
raged between the Sunnis and Shiites was largely the result of Sadr’s Mahdi Army running rampant.
There is little wonder why many call Sadr the most dangerous man in Iraq. His political backflips
ensure nobody knows which way he will head next. And the Iraq of today allows him to get away
with it. Deutsche Welle reported:
Iraq still has no government. At a time when the soul of the citizenry is boiling with anger over
rampant corruption, the war on terror is robbing the country of its last resources. Oil prices are
in free fall and seem to be dragging the economy into the abyss along with them.
The time seems ripe for demagogues.
But if there has been one constant in Sadr’s life—one thing that will keep him close to the Shiite
populace and distant from the minorities, the one trait that keeps him inexorably tied to Iran—
it is his religious beliefs, A Shiite at Heart
Basically Sadr supported Maliki, then he didn’t. Then he supported Iran, then he couldn’t.
He was a radical hard-liner, then he wasn’t. He promised to leave politics, then he wouldn’t.
Now he supports Abadi.
Al-Monitor published an article calling Sadr the chameleon of Iraqi politics. It pointed out the
Sadrist movement’s hypocrisy. “Ironically, the Sadrist movement was a main participant in corrup-
tion and a contributor in the failures that Sadr’s followers were demonstrating against with other
protesters—he was part of the government while concurrently opposing said government,” it said.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...hiite-leader-muqtada-al-sadr-protests-demands-
reform.html
-
Retaking Fallujah
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/13945.19.0.0/world/terrorism/retaking-fallujah
Not only do the citizens of Fallujah have to fear their Islamic State captors
but also the incoming liberators.
The well-known brutality of the Iranian-backed Shiite militias is now descending on the city of
Fallujah and its remaining 50,000 residents. The government-sanctioned Popular Mobilization
Force that tortured the residents of Tikrit and murdered civilians in mass revenge killings is
now on Fallujah’s doorstep.
-
August 12th, 2016
Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general who commands the Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Quds
Force and has been linked to the death of nearly 500 Americans, is now on the ground in Iraq
ahead of an upcoming offensive to retake Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, reports the Long
War Journal.
Qassem Soleimani to play “major role” in Mosul operations | FDD's Long War Journal-
operations.php
-
the Iraqi chameleon and his Iranian allies will continue to work toward a strong
Shiite-dominated Iraq and the rise of the new Middle East power, the king of the south.
Iran wants political control, and the promotion of Shiite interests, both at home and abroad.
Regardless of what he says or who he allegedly supports, Sadr’s religious beliefs define him.
He may change his political colors every other week, he may change his public image to boost
his popularity, but his Shiite upbringing leads to an inevitable conclusion: At the end of the day,
Sadr must support Iran.
Iran has nothing to lose by seeing Sadr get his way. Even if he supports a technocratic govern-
ment, Sadr has shown himself time and again to be pro-Iranian—though he may claim otherwise.
If a technocratic government is successfully installed, it will undoubtedly be vetted by Sadr—
the real power in the nation. This could finally bring a stable pro-Shiite government to Iraq—
something that Iran has striven for throughout the last decade.
If it fails and the nation descends to squabbling again, then Iran loses nothing. The nation’s
political system is already in shambles. If anything, a descent into 2006–2007-style chaos may
afford Iran more opportunity to increase its influence.
Whether a technocratic government is elected or not, the Iraqi chameleon and his Iranian
allies will continue to work toward a strong Shiite-dominated Iraq and the rise of the
new Middle East power, the king of the south.
-
25 Jan 2017- Shiite Iraqi Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr: U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem ‘A Declaration of War’
Muqtada al-Sadr: U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem 'A Declaration of War'-
declaration-war-islam/
Relocating the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would amount to a
“declaration of war against Islam” that would require the formation of an armed group to liberate
the holy city, said prominent Shiite Iraqi cleric and powerful militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr.
U.S. President Donald Trump, in a break with previous administrations, has vowed
to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the American embassy there
Sadr called for the “formation of a special division to liberate Jerusalem were the decision
to be implemented” and urged the Cairo-based Arab League, as well as the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation, the world’s leading pan-Islamic body, to either take decisive action on
the issue or disband themselves.
-
Muqtada al-Sadr’s return
■Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi wants to reshuffle his endemically corrupt cabinet
in Baghdad. But so does the radical Muqtada al-Sadr.
■Unlike Prime Minister Abadi, Sadr wants a complete overhaul of the Iraqi parliament
and the quota system of its power-sharing government. This will benefit the Shiites—
and Sadr is a Shiite cleric and militant leader.
■During the early years of the Iraqi War, Sadr’s Mahdi Army terrorized coalition forces.
And when he got into trouble with the United States, his supporters in Iran provided him refuge.
■Now he’s back, and his political clout appears stronger than ever.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-04/can-a-demagogue-help-save-iraq-s-democracy
A very interesting comment in light of the fact that you mentioned Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. He is an ally of Bush and is a member of Iraq's al-Daawa party (a Shiia faction). Back in December 1983, al-Daawa terrorists bombed the Kuwait embassy killing and injuring several Americans along with several internationals. As usual, everybody tried to blame Iran despite not presenting the slightest evidence of that claim. Of about 17 convicted for the crime, about a dozen were al-Daawa disciples. Funny how Bush should align himself with the USA's avowed enemies.
While al-Sadr is openly hostile to the USA as you indicated, he is more concerned with removing the USA out of his country. He is not and has not made any effort to export terrorism into the USA. All the USA needs to do is to withdraw from his country and he will be quite content. Al-Sadr has created several cost free hospitals, schools, food distribution centers, etc. A complete list of his charitable work which has gone ignored by the West can be found here:
[h=1]The Balancing Theory of Sayyid Hussain Isma'Eel Al-Sadr[/h]By Kamel (Mustafa) AlKadumi
Did Jesus say to uphold the law of the governing body?
Should the President inforce the laws on the books?
Trump’s campaign pledge to actually enforce existing U.S. immigration law resonated
with millions of Americans who were fed up with politicians downplaying out-of-control
illegal immigration and its deadly results.
In the presidential election, 63 million Americans ended up voting for the candidate who
promised to faithfully enforce the immigration laws passed by Congress, in contrast to
his predecessor. But now that President Trump has begun to take action against illegal
immigration, the spotlight is on more than 650 cities, counties and municipalities that
have their own statutes that directly oppose federal (and sometimes even state) law.
Must Cities Enforce the Law?
Cities around America are saying no and leading the country toward a second civil war.
“sanctuary” cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials to
deport people who enter the U.S. illegally and are wanted by federal authorities.
These local governments uphold sanctuary laws that forbid local officials
from assisting federal agents who are enforcing U.S. immigration law.
This is one trend among many others showing that America is more ideologically
and politically divided now than at any time since the Civil War.
A fight is brewing between the Trump administration and a coalition of Democratic Party
officials over whether or not sanctuary jurisdiction will allow U.S. immigration law to be enforced.
Sanctuary Jurisdictions?
From 1990 to 2014, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. tripled from 3.5 million
to 11.7 million, meaning illegal immigrants now account for about 3.5 percent of the nation’s
population. Because these illegal immigrants aren’t vetted before entering the country,
a disproportionate number of violent criminals have mixed in among these waves of
hard-working individuals and families seeking a better life.
illegal immigrants commit murder at roughly three times the rate of U.S. residents in general.
According to the Government Accountability Office, “criminal aliens” were incarcerated for
25,064 homicides between 2003 and 2010. This figure includes murders committed by all non-
citizens, not just illegal immigrants, but it shows that noncitizens—8 percent of the population
—commit 22 percent of the murders.
Despite such alarming facts, at least five states, 633 counties and 39 cities limit the extent that
local officials can assist federal immigration agents. Between January 2014 and September 2015,
sanctuary jurisdictions refused over 17,000 requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforce-
ment to detain an individual for 48 hours after their release date in order to give federal officials
time to put them into the federal deportation system.
Nearly 12,000 (70 percent) of these rejected requests were issued for illegal aliens with a
criminal record.This means sanctuary jurisdictions are releasing nearly 600 illegal aliens
with criminal backgrounds each month.
In an attempt to end this practice and to enforce federal immigration laws, President Trump issued
an executive order on January 25, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.”
“Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate federal law in an attempt to shield
aliens from removal from the United States,” this order states. “These jurisdictions have caused
immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic. … The purpose
of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies to employ all lawful means to enforce
the immigration laws of the United States.”
The mayors of 37 major American cities have pledged that they will steadfastly remain sanctuary
cities in spite of the president’s threat to withhold federal funding.
President Trump and these mayors are currently engaging in a high-stakes game of chicken.
If Congress supports the president’s pledge to cut funding to sanctuary jurisdictions and the
mayors still refuse to comply, America will experience a new nullification crisis.
If local jurisdictions were able to nullify federal immigration law, then anyone could enter the
United States. That is why the Constitution vests the power to determine immigration policies
with Congress, not states, municipalities or universities. So while it is true that the president
cannot force sanctuary jurisdictions to cooperate with federal immigration agents if they are
willing to endure certain funding cuts, Congress can pass an act requiring local police agencies
to report illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds to federal immigration officials.
Send in the Feds
If sanctuary jurisdictions continue to refuse assistance to immigration agents, President Trump
will either have to give up on his campaign pledge to enforce America’s immigration laws, or he
will have to enforce these laws using only federal officials. The second option would mean a massive
expansion of federal police power.
The number of federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled from less than
75,000 in 1996 to more than 200,000 in 2016. The number of nonmilitary federal officers authorized
to make arrests and carry firearms now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines. Former Presidents
George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been the primary architects of this expansion of federal
power, but President Trump’s executive order will add another 5,000 border patrol agents and
10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to the ever growing list.
Besides promising to enforce U.S. immigration laws, President Trump also pledged to restore “law
and order” to America’s cities. In his first week in office, he expressed his willingness to use federal
police power to honor this pledge, posting on social media that he would “send in the feds” to Chicago
if the city didn’t fix the “horrible carnage going on.”
As murder rates surge in America’s largest cities and race riots become more common, President
Trump is going to face some difficult decisions about how to enforce the law in a nation where city
mayors obstruct justice and encourage lawlessness. Meanwhile, on the streets, a segment of
American society is digging in and making itself “ungovernable” in protest against the president.
Anger and bitterness are running high and, at times, erupting in violence.
The situation is leading to a CIVIL WAR.
Last edited:
Should the courts follow the law?
Ninth Circuit Coup D’état
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently committed a dangerous act of judicial overreach.
After the states of Washington and Minnesota sued United States President Donald Trump
on January 30 for an executive order temporarily restricting the flow of refugees from seven
countries known for exporting jihadists, District Court Judge James L. Robart struck down
the president’s order with a restraining order of his own.
The judge’s February 9 order bars enforcement of President Trump’s travel ban anywhere in
the U.S. until the Trump administration proves there is an actual terrorist threat from Iran, Iraq,
Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen.
Judge Robart is wrong about the lack of a terrorist threat from the seven countries subject to
the president’s order. According to Charles Kurzman, a University of North Carolina sociology
professor, 23 percent of Muslim-Americans involved with extremist plots since the September 11
attack on the World Trade Center have had family backgrounds from at least one of the seven
countries subject to the travel ban.
Even if Robart had been correct, however, his ruling would still have been a dangerous act of
judicial overreach. It is the responsibility of the courts to rule whether or not it is legal for a
president to temporarily suspend immigration. It is not the responsibility of the courts to second
-guess the president’s judgment by deciding whether a particular threat is real in the first place.
“A 1952 federal statute permits the president to suspend the immigration status of any person or
group whose entry into the United States might impair public health or safety or national security,”
wrote Judge Andrew Napolitano in an article for Reason. “Trump exercised that authority in
accordance with the 1952 law when he signed his January 27 order banning all immigration from
the seven named countries.”
It is undisputed that America’s president has the legal authority to temporarily ban certain
immigrants from entering the country in the face of a national security threat.
In fact, President Trump’s six predecessors, including former President Barack Obama, also used
their executive power to temporarily ban certain groups of immigrants from entering the country.
What is really at stake in this legal dispute between President Trump and Judge Robart is who gets
to decide which immigrants pose a national security threat. Is it the president of the United States,
who receives a daily security briefing and is in charge of enforcing laws? Or is it any federal judge
who thinks the president’s assessment is flawed?
Federal courts are supposed to respect the separation-of-powers doctrine, which grants Congress
and the president exclusive authority to regulate immigration and conduct foreign policy. As Judge
Napolitano pointed out, Congress has granted the president the power to temporarily “suspend the
immigration status of any person or group whose entry into the United States might impair public
health or safety or national security.” The recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit is a judicial coup d’état
against the executive branch’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy.
For the past several years, the radical left has undermined the RULE OF LAW in America. When
it has controlled the executive office, it has used executive overreach. Now that the Democratic Party
has lost control of Congress and the presidency, it will have to increasingly resort to liberal judges and
judicial overreach to advance its radical agenda, which includes keeping America’s borders as open as possible.
Too many of our people want an evolving Constitution and law. … [Our leaders] like
an “evolving Constitution,” which places more trust in human reasoning than law.
The framers of America’s Constitution founded much of that document on God’s law as they
understood it. … Proper judgment must always include LAW. That is why it is so crucial that
judges not change the righteous law or reject it.
Ninth Circuit Coup D’état
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently committed a dangerous act of judicial overreach.
After the states of Washington and Minnesota sued United States President Donald Trump
on January 30 for an executive order temporarily restricting the flow of refugees from seven
countries known for exporting jihadists, District Court Judge James L. Robart struck down
the president’s order with a restraining order of his own.
The judge’s February 9 order bars enforcement of President Trump’s travel ban anywhere in
the U.S. until the Trump administration proves there is an actual terrorist threat from Iran, Iraq,
Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen.
Judge Robart is wrong about the lack of a terrorist threat from the seven countries subject to
the president’s order. According to Charles Kurzman, a University of North Carolina sociology
professor, 23 percent of Muslim-Americans involved with extremist plots since the September 11
attack on the World Trade Center have had family backgrounds from at least one of the seven
countries subject to the travel ban.
Even if Robart had been correct, however, his ruling would still have been a dangerous act of
judicial overreach. It is the responsibility of the courts to rule whether or not it is legal for a
president to temporarily suspend immigration. It is not the responsibility of the courts to second
-guess the president’s judgment by deciding whether a particular threat is real in the first place.
“A 1952 federal statute permits the president to suspend the immigration status of any person or
group whose entry into the United States might impair public health or safety or national security,”
wrote Judge Andrew Napolitano in an article for Reason. “Trump exercised that authority in
accordance with the 1952 law when he signed his January 27 order banning all immigration from
the seven named countries.”
It is undisputed that America’s president has the legal authority to temporarily ban certain
immigrants from entering the country in the face of a national security threat.
In fact, President Trump’s six predecessors, including former President Barack Obama, also used
their executive power to temporarily ban certain groups of immigrants from entering the country.
What is really at stake in this legal dispute between President Trump and Judge Robart is who gets
to decide which immigrants pose a national security threat. Is it the president of the United States,
who receives a daily security briefing and is in charge of enforcing laws? Or is it any federal judge
who thinks the president’s assessment is flawed?
Federal courts are supposed to respect the separation-of-powers doctrine, which grants Congress
and the president exclusive authority to regulate immigration and conduct foreign policy. As Judge
Napolitano pointed out, Congress has granted the president the power to temporarily “suspend the
immigration status of any person or group whose entry into the United States might impair public
health or safety or national security.” The recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit is a judicial coup d’état
against the executive branch’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy.
For the past several years, the radical left has undermined the RULE OF LAW in America. When
it has controlled the executive office, it has used executive overreach. Now that the Democratic Party
has lost control of Congress and the presidency, it will have to increasingly resort to liberal judges and
judicial overreach to advance its radical agenda, which includes keeping America’s borders as open as possible.
Too many of our people want an evolving Constitution and law. … [Our leaders] like
an “evolving Constitution,” which places more trust in human reasoning than law.
The framers of America’s Constitution founded much of that document on God’s law as they
understood it. … Proper judgment must always include LAW. That is why it is so crucial that
judges not change the righteous law or reject it.
Last edited:
So you are all out for breaking the law then I see.
Did Jesus say we can break the laws of the land?
Do you know Jesus even favored the death penalty ?
The Old Testament of the Bible speaks with perfect plainness on the issue of capital punishment:
“He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death” (Exodus 21:12).
Genesis 9:6 and Leviticus 24:17 also give full authority to those sitting in judgment to execute a
murderer. Deuteronomy 19:11-13 commands unsparing punishment for such a killer: “…deliver him
into the hand of the AVENGER OF BLOOD, that he may die. Thine eye SHALL NOT PITY HIM,
but thou shalt PUT AWAY THE GUILT of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.”
Strong words, those. The God of the Old Testament clearly favored the death penalty.
The scriptures show that Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament.
In the New Testament book of Romans, God REAFFIRMS that authority:
“Let every soul be subject unto the governing authorities. For there is no authority except
from God, and the authorities that exist [speaking of man’s governments and courts] are
appointed by God.… For he [a government or court official] is God’s minister [“servant”
or “magistrate” in some translations] to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he
does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an AVENGER TO EXECUTE
WRATH on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:1-4; New King James Version).
The God of love tells us in such scriptures as Hebrews 12:5-6 that for our own good those who
commit wrong must be corrected. Correction is the God-given means to prevent crime and other
problems. Using strong correction FORCES CHANGE in criminals convicted of lesser offenses
and eliminates entirely the threat of those convicted of violent crimes such as murder.
“Punishment, when meted out in the proper manner, and at the proper time, is one of the
greatest blessings a human being—at any age—can receive!” The reason is that if we do
not receive correction, we will proceed on a course to our own destruction (Proverbs 14:12).
Through correction, God can steer us in the path toward a happy, fulfilled life.
Many people reject God’s clear commandments involving implementation of the death penalty.
And though the death penalty was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, Americans have
demenstrated a fear to sternly correct evildoers, and are vacillating in their determination to use
the God-given option of executing people for horrible wrongs. As the late FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover once stated about our modern permissive society, we have “substituted INDULGENCE
for discipline.” The result is that our prisons are full to overflowing and our society is inundated
in violent crime.
Discipline Promptly
In Proverbs 19:18, God gives us the principle that applies to disobedient children, juvenile delinquents
or hardened criminals. We are told, “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for
his crying” (Proverbs 19:18). There comes a point for an undisciplined child when there is no (or very
little) hope of correcting bad behavior. Often, a delinquent—and finally a hardened criminal—will result
because the parents were too soft during their child’s early years, when they had the greatest hope of
curbing the child’s self-centered and destructive ways.
As parents and as a society, we are not to “spare for his crying” by lessening the punishment. Proverbs
13:24 admonishes us, “He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him DISCIPLINES HIM
PROMPTLY” (NKJV). For the good of society and the individual, swift, stern justice must be meted
out when wrongs are brought to light.
Ecclesiastes 8:11 tells us the importance of swift punishment when it says, “Because sentence against
an evil work is not EXECUTED SPEEDILY, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them
to DO EVIL.” How clear and wise! When wrongdoing is not immediately punished, then all or almost
all of the deterrent value to any subsequent punishment is lost!
As for determining a person’s guilt, there is only one biblical rule: “Whoever kills a person, the
murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient
testimony against a person for the death penalty” (Numbers 35:30; NKJV). Deuteronomy 17:6
agrees: “Whoever is worthy of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses,
but he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness” . In God’s eyes, repeated reprieves
and appeals—and now, insistence upon DNA testing to verify guilt—should not be necessary for
death-row inmates.
Ezra 7:26 guides us toward speedy response to crime by stating, “And whosoever will not do the
law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be
unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.”
The criminal mind does not respect authority. The only thing such a person respects is equal or
stronger FORCE! And when that strong force is used immediately to severely punish an offender,
it makes others of like mind think twice before acting likewise.
However, once again, the liberal element in our society says there is little deterrent value in
punishments such as the death penalty. They have a point—but only because of how hesitant
our courts are to use the death penalty!
The Deterrence Factor
No sane man or woman wants to put another person to death. It is understandable to have
a certain degree of pity for someone who is going to die, even if he or she deserves to die.
People who commit crimes are promised a fair trial—NOT a perfect trial. Yet so many of the
habeas corpus appeals (many of which amount to little more than stalling tactics) are procedural
and/or frivolous in nature, nit-picking the court over minor imperfections in court procedure.
Flawed humans will make mistakes. But that must not stop us from following God’s plain commands!
A swift death penalty was intended by our Creator to deter or restrain additional people from com-
mitting the sin of murder. To stop or delay the death penalty because the courts are afraid of making
a mistake is direct disobedience to God and His laws!
Many a career criminal has already proven he cannot “make it” in normal society; and if he murders, rapes, robs
and commits general mayhem, SO WHAT? He knows he’ll be provided food and shelter for the rest of his life so that
he never has to work again!
Why should he fear to kill? Even though he probably murdered unmercifully, the “merciful” liberals will see to it
that HIS life is spared so that the taxpayers can support him for the next 20, 40 or 60 years in a prison environment
where he is “somebody”—a “man among men” so to speak!
We must not get softer on crime, we must get tougher!
The book of Proverbs states, “When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise,”
and “Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware” (Proverbs 21:11; 19:25). People can
learn vicariously from the experiences of others!
The deterrent effect of the death penalty is muted because of current practices. But even
basic understanding of human nature tells us that, if administered properly, the death penalty
would have a significant deterrent effect!
Did Jesus say we can break the laws of the land?
Do you know Jesus even favored the death penalty ?
The Old Testament of the Bible speaks with perfect plainness on the issue of capital punishment:
“He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death” (Exodus 21:12).
Genesis 9:6 and Leviticus 24:17 also give full authority to those sitting in judgment to execute a
murderer. Deuteronomy 19:11-13 commands unsparing punishment for such a killer: “…deliver him
into the hand of the AVENGER OF BLOOD, that he may die. Thine eye SHALL NOT PITY HIM,
but thou shalt PUT AWAY THE GUILT of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.”
Strong words, those. The God of the Old Testament clearly favored the death penalty.
The scriptures show that Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament.
In the New Testament book of Romans, God REAFFIRMS that authority:
“Let every soul be subject unto the governing authorities. For there is no authority except
from God, and the authorities that exist [speaking of man’s governments and courts] are
appointed by God.… For he [a government or court official] is God’s minister [“servant”
or “magistrate” in some translations] to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he
does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an AVENGER TO EXECUTE
WRATH on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:1-4; New King James Version).
The God of love tells us in such scriptures as Hebrews 12:5-6 that for our own good those who
commit wrong must be corrected. Correction is the God-given means to prevent crime and other
problems. Using strong correction FORCES CHANGE in criminals convicted of lesser offenses
and eliminates entirely the threat of those convicted of violent crimes such as murder.
“Punishment, when meted out in the proper manner, and at the proper time, is one of the
greatest blessings a human being—at any age—can receive!” The reason is that if we do
not receive correction, we will proceed on a course to our own destruction (Proverbs 14:12).
Through correction, God can steer us in the path toward a happy, fulfilled life.
Many people reject God’s clear commandments involving implementation of the death penalty.
And though the death penalty was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, Americans have
demenstrated a fear to sternly correct evildoers, and are vacillating in their determination to use
the God-given option of executing people for horrible wrongs. As the late FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover once stated about our modern permissive society, we have “substituted INDULGENCE
for discipline.” The result is that our prisons are full to overflowing and our society is inundated
in violent crime.
Discipline Promptly
In Proverbs 19:18, God gives us the principle that applies to disobedient children, juvenile delinquents
or hardened criminals. We are told, “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for
his crying” (Proverbs 19:18). There comes a point for an undisciplined child when there is no (or very
little) hope of correcting bad behavior. Often, a delinquent—and finally a hardened criminal—will result
because the parents were too soft during their child’s early years, when they had the greatest hope of
curbing the child’s self-centered and destructive ways.
As parents and as a society, we are not to “spare for his crying” by lessening the punishment. Proverbs
13:24 admonishes us, “He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him DISCIPLINES HIM
PROMPTLY” (NKJV). For the good of society and the individual, swift, stern justice must be meted
out when wrongs are brought to light.
Ecclesiastes 8:11 tells us the importance of swift punishment when it says, “Because sentence against
an evil work is not EXECUTED SPEEDILY, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them
to DO EVIL.” How clear and wise! When wrongdoing is not immediately punished, then all or almost
all of the deterrent value to any subsequent punishment is lost!
As for determining a person’s guilt, there is only one biblical rule: “Whoever kills a person, the
murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient
testimony against a person for the death penalty” (Numbers 35:30; NKJV). Deuteronomy 17:6
agrees: “Whoever is worthy of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses,
but he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness” . In God’s eyes, repeated reprieves
and appeals—and now, insistence upon DNA testing to verify guilt—should not be necessary for
death-row inmates.
Ezra 7:26 guides us toward speedy response to crime by stating, “And whosoever will not do the
law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be
unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.”
The criminal mind does not respect authority. The only thing such a person respects is equal or
stronger FORCE! And when that strong force is used immediately to severely punish an offender,
it makes others of like mind think twice before acting likewise.
However, once again, the liberal element in our society says there is little deterrent value in
punishments such as the death penalty. They have a point—but only because of how hesitant
our courts are to use the death penalty!
The Deterrence Factor
No sane man or woman wants to put another person to death. It is understandable to have
a certain degree of pity for someone who is going to die, even if he or she deserves to die.
People who commit crimes are promised a fair trial—NOT a perfect trial. Yet so many of the
habeas corpus appeals (many of which amount to little more than stalling tactics) are procedural
and/or frivolous in nature, nit-picking the court over minor imperfections in court procedure.
Flawed humans will make mistakes. But that must not stop us from following God’s plain commands!
A swift death penalty was intended by our Creator to deter or restrain additional people from com-
mitting the sin of murder. To stop or delay the death penalty because the courts are afraid of making
a mistake is direct disobedience to God and His laws!
Many a career criminal has already proven he cannot “make it” in normal society; and if he murders, rapes, robs
and commits general mayhem, SO WHAT? He knows he’ll be provided food and shelter for the rest of his life so that
he never has to work again!
Why should he fear to kill? Even though he probably murdered unmercifully, the “merciful” liberals will see to it
that HIS life is spared so that the taxpayers can support him for the next 20, 40 or 60 years in a prison environment
where he is “somebody”—a “man among men” so to speak!
We must not get softer on crime, we must get tougher!
The book of Proverbs states, “When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise,”
and “Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware” (Proverbs 21:11; 19:25). People can
learn vicariously from the experiences of others!
The deterrent effect of the death penalty is muted because of current practices. But even
basic understanding of human nature tells us that, if administered properly, the death penalty
would have a significant deterrent effect!
Last edited:
You are referring to McCarran-Walter Act which states, "The Act allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also allowed the barring of suspected subversives from entering the country. It was used to bar members and former members and "fellow travelers" of the Communist Party from entry into the United States, even those who had not been associated with the party for decades."
wiki
In other words, the president MUST first establish that such persons are engaged in subversive activity. Merely being of the same ethnic/country origin of a disfavored class does not constitute proof of subversive activity. This is why the two courts ruled against Trump who was overreaching his authority under that law.
E
when are people gong to stop listening to the main stream media, and try to get the truth?
1. It is a temporary ban in countries in whcih proper vetting procedures are not in place.
2. It is used to temporarily halt possible entry into our country peple who want to rape and murder our children and loved ones
3. It is only put in place until proper vetting procedures are in place then will be removed.
4. The reason it is in these countries, is because THEY are the countries with the problems (vetting issues)
5. The number of countries, or list, was actual made by Obama himself.
1. It is a temporary ban in countries in whcih proper vetting procedures are not in place.
2. It is used to temporarily halt possible entry into our country peple who want to rape and murder our children and loved ones
3. It is only put in place until proper vetting procedures are in place then will be removed.
4. The reason it is in these countries, is because THEY are the countries with the problems (vetting issues)
5. The number of countries, or list, was actual made by Obama himself.
President Trump’s six predecessors, including former President Barack Obama, also used
their executive power to temporarily ban certain groups of immigrants from entering the country.
where was the outrage when Obama and others did the same thing?
not all bad guys are from Communist Parties only.
Trump had followed the letter of the law in this matter.
the court judge committed a dangerous act of judicial overreach.
the president who receives a daily security briefing and is in charge of enforcing laws.
not the responsibility of the courts to second guess the president’s judgment.
the court judge who knows nothing about the daily security briefings of the country.
foreign policy is not in the courts authority or there decision .
under that law ,Trump had followed it, the court overreached its authority.
why did Obama or other presidents not summit proof of subversive activity?
Obama has even made it legal that he could have someone killed , here or away,
foreign or domestic, if a high ranking person deems they are a threat to the country.
this without a judge [or due process] or any legal notice given to the person.
Obama justifies assassination of US citizens, without due process
-
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own
citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield.
The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has
exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone
strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are
still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman
with a separate drone strike in Yemen.
Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no
checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability.
Obama moves to make the War on Terror permanent
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list
The creepiest aspect of this development is the christening of a new Orwellian euphemism
for due-process-free presidential assassinations: "disposition matrix".
The "disposition matrix" has been developed and will be overseen by the National Counter-
terrorism Center (NCTC). One of its purposes is "to augment" the "separate but overlapping
kill lists" maintained by the CIA and the Pentagon: to serve, in other words, as the centralized
clearinghouse for determining who will be executed without due process based upon how one
fits into the executive branch's "matrix".
Obama cracked down on our liberties at home, abroad he let everyone walk over us.
their executive power to temporarily ban certain groups of immigrants from entering the country.
where was the outrage when Obama and others did the same thing?
not all bad guys are from Communist Parties only.
Trump had followed the letter of the law in this matter.
the court judge committed a dangerous act of judicial overreach.
the president who receives a daily security briefing and is in charge of enforcing laws.
not the responsibility of the courts to second guess the president’s judgment.
the court judge who knows nothing about the daily security briefings of the country.
foreign policy is not in the courts authority or there decision .
under that law ,Trump had followed it, the court overreached its authority.
why did Obama or other presidents not summit proof of subversive activity?
Obama has even made it legal that he could have someone killed , here or away,
foreign or domestic, if a high ranking person deems they are a threat to the country.
this without a judge [or due process] or any legal notice given to the person.
Obama justifies assassination of US citizens, without due process
-
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own
citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield.
The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has
exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone
strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are
still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman
with a separate drone strike in Yemen.
Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no
checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability.
Obama moves to make the War on Terror permanent
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list
The creepiest aspect of this development is the christening of a new Orwellian euphemism
for due-process-free presidential assassinations: "disposition matrix".
The "disposition matrix" has been developed and will be overseen by the National Counter-
terrorism Center (NCTC). One of its purposes is "to augment" the "separate but overlapping
kill lists" maintained by the CIA and the Pentagon: to serve, in other words, as the centralized
clearinghouse for determining who will be executed without due process based upon how one
fits into the executive branch's "matrix".
Obama cracked down on our liberties at home, abroad he let everyone walk over us.
Last edited: