Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Wrath Of Khan: Coulter

seriously dude, you are losing what little cred you used to have. What happened to you? Geez

Amazing the chit that has slithered in here, and some that were here embarrassed of what they are. All it took was a little company. and they come out of the wood work.



Take care, Willie

The issue for me is not the content of Khan's attack, it's the way Trump responded. Not the details of how he responded or how right or wrong his positions are, but that Trump was totally unprepared to respond, and predictably so.

For someone asking to be the President I expect them to be informed, seek the best consul, and respond brilliantly. Had Trump done so he could have easily turned Khan's attack back on Hillary and demonstrated his aptitude for being President. As it is, he demonstrated how badly he would handle provocations were he elected.

I expect Hillary's campaign is planning more attacks to further demonstrated to voters that Trump's response to provocations is predictably amateurish and bumbling. Vladimir Putin, Li Keqiang, and others are watching and learning.

So what if the American public stops muslim immigration...or do you not think your country has the right to self determine it's own future and citizenry?

I am very sure I want my government to look out for my future better than it has, after all if I wanted to live in a muslim infested cesspool I would move to France.

There is no problem with limiting immigration by things like country of origin or creating blocks to immigration such as unable to vet somebody or if they have even distant relations who are involved with terrorist organizations.

And, ALL immigration can be halted.

I would expect any block on immigration based on the faith of the immigrant to be struck down in court as unConstitutional, but that's just a guess.

Want it to happen? Just have to convince Congress and the President to do it.

I understand a non-muslim president can do it, as it has been done before.

My understanding was that it hadn't been done based on religion, but rather on country of origin. Again, just what I've heard, maybe some of the legal types here know more.

Last time religion might have been used was probably 1910 or earlier, and lots of court rulings have happened since then. Back then they did things like create laws that china men and native americans couldn't become citizens - those were struck down long, long ago.

So what if it on the basis of religion, specifically a religion that exerts political influence on it's members and those not under it's control.

Your constitution is by Americans for Americans.

I think its clear to everyone that Trump has never read the consitution !! let alone read anything

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/10/donald-trump-humiliates-constitution-wrong-meet-press.html

Another Republican in the meeting, Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC), [said] that Trump was asked pointedly if he would defend Article I of the Constitution.

"Not only will I stand up for Article One," Trump enthusiastically stated, according to Sanford. "I'll stand up for Article Two, Article 12, you name it of the Constitution."

Sanford said Trump's lack of knowledge about how many articles exist, gave him "a little pause." (The Constitution has seven articles and 27 amendments.)

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/24/donald-trump-article-xii/

"The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders".

- Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding Template:344 U.S. 590, 596, (US Supreme Court Ruling)

Thank you Hawk.

There you go fellas, you don't have to let anyone in at all if you do not want to.

But those you have let in already are Americans with full rights and responsibilities.

The second part of your statement overstates the ruling. All people within our borders are not US Citizens with all of the rights thereof. It does say, however, that all rights recognized by our Constitution as belonging to all people must be respected by our government with regard to those lawfully within our borders. Not all people within our borders, however, have a Constitutional right to citizenship.

More importantly, however, the ruling states that no one who is not yet authorized to enter our borders may appeal to their rights under our Constitution with regard to our immigration policy.