Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 9 months ago
    Extreme vetting is a good idea, however the Quoran admonishment that it is perfectly OK to lie to infidels (every non Muslim) kind of makes the need for background checks a necessity. Wouldn't you think so?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 9 months ago
    Just because previous court rulings erroneously gave power to the executive branch that poitically appointed them to a lifelong position of power does NOT mean that those POOR rulings should stand.
    The Supreme Court was never intended to wield power over state law (except, for example, in cases of interstate commerce to prevent interstate tariffs from restricting commerce.)
    Both the executive and judicial branches have stolen power that belongs to the people and to the states. Congress should set explicit rules for immigration and imprisonment penalties for the executive branch if those rules are not followed. States should take back the power by disregarding all executive orders, proclamations, etc. This is supposed to be a Republican form government, not a monarchy or a dictatorship.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 9 months ago
    While the proposed action is constitutional, the question is whether or not it would achieve the intended goal of preventing the entry of extreme radicals intent on the overthrow of our form of government. Muslims are taught that it's acceptable to lie, especially to infidels, and especially if the lie helps protect and promote the faith. A fanatic Islamist could aver he supports equal rights for gays and women, and doesn't believe in sharia replacing American law, lying through his teeth, but with a clear conscience.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 4 years, 9 months ago
    This reminds me of a thought I recently had on this. If we would only institute effective military action against our enemies "over there" we might not even be having this discussion. I know this is a loaded comment... But, what are your thoughts?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by EdGoldstein 4 years, 9 months ago
      Our enemy is the pseudo religious political system Islam which has 1.6 billion followers of which 10% or 16 million are our avowed enemies and another 20 % openly support that 16 million it is not practical to make war. What can be done is keep more from coming and institute policies that reduce the attractiveness of jihad to those who are already here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 9 months ago
      well, using our military for "nation-building" is like
      using a back-hoe to do a manicure ... we should use
      the military to do what they are trained to do. -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Abaco 4 years, 9 months ago
        Oh, I agree. I'm not talking about "building" anything...but doing quite the opposite. We have been in the business of nation-building. How is that working out? I think Europe is an example of what to expect here.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 9 months ago
        I'm only aware of one unit that is involved in that sort of thing. There are barely several thousand of those -several meaning four to seven. They only go to the point of assisting instituting or re-instituting a government after that it's up to the nation to rebuild itself albeit with some forms of assistance which can include engineer units to assist putting infrastructure in shape or training teams for various portions of that 'nations' military.

        For their purpose they manicure quite well but as always it's only cosmetic until the nation itself decides to rebuilt itself.

        Tiypically nation building has been more a case of vacuum building with something else rushing in to fill the void or more than one somethings and the motive revenge instead of economics.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 4 years, 9 months ago
    I believe that this "vetting" is a good idea. However, if anyone has the legitimate power to implement it, it would have to be Congress, not a president acting alone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by peterchunt 4 years, 9 months ago
    Only Democrats would think it is a constitutional issue to not want to protect our country of unwanted and undesirable people entering. Good for Trump for doing what this administration fails to do.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 4 years, 9 months ago
    An ideological test is part of the constitution. As are the self evident truths of the Declaration of independence. There is a certain age criteria and a value test (Naturalized citizen) to become President. The constitution assumed Judeo-Christian values would be taught to all citizens and new citizens would be assimilated to our values. Those values have been discarded

    Obama would not have passed the ideological test as he was raised both as a Muslim and a Communist.

    Immigration has been done by a quota system with no test of whether we need people's talents or if they are compatible with American values.

    What are American Values you may ask?
    See: http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPre...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 9 months ago
    Extreme Vetting as I read the article refers not extreme methods of vetting but discerning extreme viewpoints and beliefs of the applicant for immigration privileges. Reading the comments in the original article the most common centered around the transistion of belief from religious law trumping all else to constitutional law trumping all else to or from the latter to the actions of Obama and probable actions of Hillary using Executive Law as a dictator. - for that matter a single Judge in a lower court overturning the Constitution.

    I would be in favor of not only heavily vetting the Islamic applicant for immigration privileges if nor nothing else their cultural background and heavily barbaric responses are unacceptable.

    I'm also in favor of reigning in both Presidents and rogue Judges before allowing them to be elected or appointed and in the case of the latter allowing recall which exists for Presidents and Vice Presidents should in the Succession amendments so why not other senior members of the government.

    On the whole a sound idea needing implementation showing solid thinking. '

    As one commenter in the original article put it the Democrats should have vetted their own candidates for rogue candidates like Hillary and instructed their right wing of the left wing of the Government Party to do the same. But the cat is out to the bag and the ultimate outsider is in the political hen house. All for the better.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo