The Koran to the conquest of the West. IV
Oct 10, 2016 09:55:28 #
In Calais in France the Muslims refugees are assaulting the trucks going to Dover in England in order to use them to go to the UK; and the population of the town of Calais is living under a regime of terror impose by the said refugees, who enter in the houses of the village and take what they want, commiting abuses of all kinds, with total impunity, because the people of the town do not receive the help of the authorities. Why the autorities do not do anything against these refugees? I think that Marine Le Pen is going to have a great opportunity in the next elections, opposing to this protection of the Muslims refugees of the actual goverment, disregarding the rights of the french people.
I think that one of the main causes of the approval of the Brexit, has to do with the oposition of the british people to the inmigration of Muslins accepted by the government of Prime Minister Cameron.
In Italy, the Islamic State is afraid of the Italian mafia, because it is well organized and armed. On this, I can say that the Muslim extremists abuse of the pacifism and of the respect of the people for existing law in any place where they arrive; and that in Italy this organization outside the law (the mafia), enforces the respect of its territory and property, not leaving without punishment, fast and appropriate, any act or threat against their interests. The Mafia recognizes that the Islam is a totalitarian doctrine and having the experience that resulted of fascism for their interests, it confront the Muslims.
Norwegian authorities are offering a "bonus" 10,000 kroner (£1,000) to asylum seekers willing to leave the country voluntarily. For a long time, Norway has not been able to forcibly return people to Somalia, but now that it is possible, they think that more Somalis with an obligation to leave will opt for assisted return.
I came across an article that is about the apocalyptic level of culturally-enriched violence in Gronland, a district of the city of Oslo in Norway, where the women are being raped at night and men are robed more thant ever. It looks like Karachi, Basra, and Mogadishu all rolled into one. People sell drugs openly just next to the Gronland subway station. So is written in that articule about the deeds of the Muslims refugees in that place.
I do not pretend to make an account of the behavior of the Muslims in Europe, as shown in the news through the INTERNET, because it would take many pages. I only pretend to make understood that the behavior of the Muslims in many cases, is contrary to the laws and customs of these countries, trending to humiliate and impose upon the peoples of the West; and to make matters worse, many Muslims who say that the Islam is a religion of peace, do not speak publicly to oppose these behaviors and privately they do not condemn them either, for not being contrary to the Koran; and even imams in mosques when instructing on the Koran, in fact approve these actions, because they are made against the infidels, and the Koran authorizes all that is done against nonbelievers.
I do not understand why politicians with the support of the religious leaders, have opened the doors of the West countries indiscriminately, to the Muslims refugees, who have 57 countries where the Islam is the official religion, which can receive them. I think that these refugees might be assisted by the means of the UN and Western countries could contribute with material aid. Are this politicians contributing to the conquest of the West by the Muslims? Why? What are they gaining?
I estimate that in the western countries should be accepted as refugees only those who are not Muslims and that those who profess the religion of the Islam should be sent to countries where their inhabitants, in a majority, are followers of this religion. Some of these Islamic countries do not have a great population and are oil producers and for many years have had huge revenues due to the rising price of that fuel and therefore have the means to help their Muslims brothers. As I could know recently, in Saudi Arabia they have the capacity and the willingness to accept about three million refugees. I believe that this country, along with others who are Islamic fundamentalists, are ideal for Muslim refugees, taking on account that in them the refugees of that religion would feel at ease. Other countries that could receive refugees are: Iran to Shiite refugees; and Sunnis, along with Saudi Arabia: Algeria, Barheim, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Egypt, etc. only to mention a few of them. Western countries can receive as refugees those who in Iraq and Syria have been repressed and discriminated against for not being Muslims or for practicing any other religion that is not the Islam.
In the fable of the man who freed the tiger, which I mentioned above, the animals that served as judges agreed that the man should be devoured because of his recklessness; and only the cunning fox, managed to get the tiger back into the trap and then rebuked the man, because only a sucker would set free a tiger without taking precautions, being the moral lesson of the fable: "Compassion can be dangerous, when practiced without care."
The West must close its doors to the Islam, because history shows that this religion, since its inception in the seventh century, tends to conquer the world in a violent manner, which claim is expressly stated in their holy book, the Koran, which is its political program .
The book Mein Kampf of Adolf Hitler, which was the basis of National Socialism; that is the Nazi party, was the political program of that party, and can be considered as an attempt of an amateur to conquer the world, which cost millions of lives and great suffering, in the period of the years between 1933 to 1945. Hitler was a great admirer of Muhammad and once told Albert Speer, his personal architect: "Our misfortune is that we chose the wrong religion. Why does it have to be Christianity with his obedience and drowsiness? The Islam is the <mänreligión> the religion of the true men; the Islam warriors go to military paradise with houris and rivers of wine." Hitler praised the first president of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, for his adaptation of Islam, establishing the secularism of the religion, for the expulsion of the Greeks and the massacre of the Armenians. In April 1942, Hitler became the first European leader to declare that the Islam is incapable of committing acts of terrorism.
In World War II there were Muslims fighting on both sides, but only between the Nazis and the Muslims were a political and spiritual connection. The leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, recruited several thousand Palestinian Arabs, as first volunteers not Germans to serve in the SS. In November 1944, Himmler, the commander in chief of the SS and the Grand Mufti, created in Dresden the Military Imams School, under the auspices of the SS. After the end of the war, some of the Muslim Nazis escaped and entered the service as consultants to Saudi Arabia.
Earlier, I said that Hitler was an amateur trying to conquer the world; which I reaffirm, because compared to Muhammad he is disqualified, taking into account that his stage of power did not exceed twelve years and his empire crumbled, forcing him to commit suicide, according to the official version; and it can be say, without fear to make a mistake, that Muhammad is a true professional in the attempt to conquer the world; knowing that since the seventh century, when he began his career and even after his death, having elapse fourteen centuries, continues his "effort" (jihad) to conquer the world through the Koran, which is comparable to the bagpipes, which having died the piper continues to sound.
Nazism, fascism and communism are totalitarian doctrines, in disappearance, which are contrary to the "American Way of Life"; so, when someone asks to reside in the United States of America, in the application forms, that person is asked if he or she has had any relation with these ideologies. However, there is no mention of the Islam, which is concealed under the cloak of religion, the wolf in the sheep skin; not taking into account that it is a real danger to this country because this religion, which is in full force, aims to conquer the world with its political, economic, social, cultural, military and customs program, amalgamated by religion, as established in the Koran; being the Islam more dangerous than the union of the three totalitarian political ideologies above mentioned,
Politicians, especially liberals who call themselves progressives, support the entry of the Muslim refugees, both in Europe and in the United States of America and entrepreneurs willingly cooperate to this madness. As I read in the news, in New York there are companies that are creating conditions for the Muslim refugees who may obtain work in them, could have special facilities to wash their feet and make their prayers during the day.
These protectors of the Muslims must bear in mind that although all Muslims are not terrorists, who unleashed terror in this country at this moment are the Muslims, inspired by what their religion preaches against all those who are not believers of the Islam; and it is not known which of them may have been inoculated with the virus of Islamic radicalism and at a certain point become a danger to those around them (becoming lone wolves), as happened in the massacres that took place in San Bernardino, California or Orlando in Florida; or if they are in contact with extremist groups (Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc.) to organize large acts of terror, as the pulling down of the twin towers and the attack on the Pentagon building.
It is raising awareness of the danger in some places and in the state of Texas and in other nineteen states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, North and South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia) has been banned the Sharia law (Islamic law), there have been introduced bills banning the courts from accommodating this law, albeit after watering them down to not even mention the word, "Sharia", because the politicians who sponsor or support such bills are accused as suffering from Islamophobia by fierce challenges from well-financed Muslim groups, that campaign against their re-election, and sue them in court, as was the case with Geert Wilder in the Netherlands. Then I pick up the comment of a US citizen, in the forum One Political Plaza, from where I took the news, in summary form: "It was time to do so. This law (Sharia) should not be applied in any place in this country. We have a country, a people, a Constitution. Our country is united by our constitutional laws. The United States should not accept the imposition of the law of another land, nation, country, people, religion or philosophy. A house divided within itself will fall. If the Muslims wants to continue with his Islamic law, they should go back to where they came from and practice it there. The Muslim leaders say they feel insulted by the outlawing of sharia law in the state of Texas; and we respond them that this is America and we do not care if they feel insulted; you are who are insulting the United States, trying to impose your Sharia law here. Do you want to live in our country? You obey our laws and adopt our way of life. You were not asked to come here. I'm sure this is the opinion of millions of American citizens not only mine"
What this American says is very clear; but I would add something else, the claim that Sharia law could be recognized in any state is not possible, because it goes against the First Amendment of the Constitution, as it would be the establishment of practices of civil or criminal law (child marriages, stoning, mutilations, etc.) based on religious criteria contrary to the customs of the country and would be to accept the official establishment of those religious criteria, to the detriment of existing legislation, according to the Constitutions of the nation and of each State. I think that this issue should be submitted to the Supreme Court of the USA by a competent executive or legislative body, in order to outlaw the Sharia law in all states of this country.
On the other hand, setting the Koran that the only religion that can exist is the Islam, declaring war against other religions and threatening to kill the believers of them, is exerting coercion, to prevent under threat the free practice of other religions; and therefore it is attacking the existence of these religions, going against the right that grant them the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: (The legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State), giving place to the imposition of an appeal requesting that the Koran, which doctrines incite the Muslims to kill those who are not believers of the Islam, to be declared outlaw and because of that declaring forbiden the religion of the Islam in the USA, while this religion does not repeal the threats aforesaid.
Let us see what says the Supreme Court: "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order". In Reynolds v. United States (1878):“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices”. This was applied to the Mormon Church in the case of poligamy. So, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g. human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee) and applying this decision to the Islam means that the legislative system could strike every practice of the Sharia law that it found disagreeable: child marriages, stoning, mutilations, etc. The Court stated that to rule otherwise: "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself, the government would exist only in name under such circumstances". "In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute"
I think that one of the main causes of the approval of the Brexit, has to do with the oposition of the british people to the inmigration of Muslins accepted by the government of Prime Minister Cameron.
In Italy, the Islamic State is afraid of the Italian mafia, because it is well organized and armed. On this, I can say that the Muslim extremists abuse of the pacifism and of the respect of the people for existing law in any place where they arrive; and that in Italy this organization outside the law (the mafia), enforces the respect of its territory and property, not leaving without punishment, fast and appropriate, any act or threat against their interests. The Mafia recognizes that the Islam is a totalitarian doctrine and having the experience that resulted of fascism for their interests, it confront the Muslims.
Norwegian authorities are offering a "bonus" 10,000 kroner (£1,000) to asylum seekers willing to leave the country voluntarily. For a long time, Norway has not been able to forcibly return people to Somalia, but now that it is possible, they think that more Somalis with an obligation to leave will opt for assisted return.
I came across an article that is about the apocalyptic level of culturally-enriched violence in Gronland, a district of the city of Oslo in Norway, where the women are being raped at night and men are robed more thant ever. It looks like Karachi, Basra, and Mogadishu all rolled into one. People sell drugs openly just next to the Gronland subway station. So is written in that articule about the deeds of the Muslims refugees in that place.
I do not pretend to make an account of the behavior of the Muslims in Europe, as shown in the news through the INTERNET, because it would take many pages. I only pretend to make understood that the behavior of the Muslims in many cases, is contrary to the laws and customs of these countries, trending to humiliate and impose upon the peoples of the West; and to make matters worse, many Muslims who say that the Islam is a religion of peace, do not speak publicly to oppose these behaviors and privately they do not condemn them either, for not being contrary to the Koran; and even imams in mosques when instructing on the Koran, in fact approve these actions, because they are made against the infidels, and the Koran authorizes all that is done against nonbelievers.
I do not understand why politicians with the support of the religious leaders, have opened the doors of the West countries indiscriminately, to the Muslims refugees, who have 57 countries where the Islam is the official religion, which can receive them. I think that these refugees might be assisted by the means of the UN and Western countries could contribute with material aid. Are this politicians contributing to the conquest of the West by the Muslims? Why? What are they gaining?
I estimate that in the western countries should be accepted as refugees only those who are not Muslims and that those who profess the religion of the Islam should be sent to countries where their inhabitants, in a majority, are followers of this religion. Some of these Islamic countries do not have a great population and are oil producers and for many years have had huge revenues due to the rising price of that fuel and therefore have the means to help their Muslims brothers. As I could know recently, in Saudi Arabia they have the capacity and the willingness to accept about three million refugees. I believe that this country, along with others who are Islamic fundamentalists, are ideal for Muslim refugees, taking on account that in them the refugees of that religion would feel at ease. Other countries that could receive refugees are: Iran to Shiite refugees; and Sunnis, along with Saudi Arabia: Algeria, Barheim, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Egypt, etc. only to mention a few of them. Western countries can receive as refugees those who in Iraq and Syria have been repressed and discriminated against for not being Muslims or for practicing any other religion that is not the Islam.
In the fable of the man who freed the tiger, which I mentioned above, the animals that served as judges agreed that the man should be devoured because of his recklessness; and only the cunning fox, managed to get the tiger back into the trap and then rebuked the man, because only a sucker would set free a tiger without taking precautions, being the moral lesson of the fable: "Compassion can be dangerous, when practiced without care."
The West must close its doors to the Islam, because history shows that this religion, since its inception in the seventh century, tends to conquer the world in a violent manner, which claim is expressly stated in their holy book, the Koran, which is its political program .
The book Mein Kampf of Adolf Hitler, which was the basis of National Socialism; that is the Nazi party, was the political program of that party, and can be considered as an attempt of an amateur to conquer the world, which cost millions of lives and great suffering, in the period of the years between 1933 to 1945. Hitler was a great admirer of Muhammad and once told Albert Speer, his personal architect: "Our misfortune is that we chose the wrong religion. Why does it have to be Christianity with his obedience and drowsiness? The Islam is the <mänreligión> the religion of the true men; the Islam warriors go to military paradise with houris and rivers of wine." Hitler praised the first president of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, for his adaptation of Islam, establishing the secularism of the religion, for the expulsion of the Greeks and the massacre of the Armenians. In April 1942, Hitler became the first European leader to declare that the Islam is incapable of committing acts of terrorism.
In World War II there were Muslims fighting on both sides, but only between the Nazis and the Muslims were a political and spiritual connection. The leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, recruited several thousand Palestinian Arabs, as first volunteers not Germans to serve in the SS. In November 1944, Himmler, the commander in chief of the SS and the Grand Mufti, created in Dresden the Military Imams School, under the auspices of the SS. After the end of the war, some of the Muslim Nazis escaped and entered the service as consultants to Saudi Arabia.
Earlier, I said that Hitler was an amateur trying to conquer the world; which I reaffirm, because compared to Muhammad he is disqualified, taking into account that his stage of power did not exceed twelve years and his empire crumbled, forcing him to commit suicide, according to the official version; and it can be say, without fear to make a mistake, that Muhammad is a true professional in the attempt to conquer the world; knowing that since the seventh century, when he began his career and even after his death, having elapse fourteen centuries, continues his "effort" (jihad) to conquer the world through the Koran, which is comparable to the bagpipes, which having died the piper continues to sound.
Nazism, fascism and communism are totalitarian doctrines, in disappearance, which are contrary to the "American Way of Life"; so, when someone asks to reside in the United States of America, in the application forms, that person is asked if he or she has had any relation with these ideologies. However, there is no mention of the Islam, which is concealed under the cloak of religion, the wolf in the sheep skin; not taking into account that it is a real danger to this country because this religion, which is in full force, aims to conquer the world with its political, economic, social, cultural, military and customs program, amalgamated by religion, as established in the Koran; being the Islam more dangerous than the union of the three totalitarian political ideologies above mentioned,
Politicians, especially liberals who call themselves progressives, support the entry of the Muslim refugees, both in Europe and in the United States of America and entrepreneurs willingly cooperate to this madness. As I read in the news, in New York there are companies that are creating conditions for the Muslim refugees who may obtain work in them, could have special facilities to wash their feet and make their prayers during the day.
These protectors of the Muslims must bear in mind that although all Muslims are not terrorists, who unleashed terror in this country at this moment are the Muslims, inspired by what their religion preaches against all those who are not believers of the Islam; and it is not known which of them may have been inoculated with the virus of Islamic radicalism and at a certain point become a danger to those around them (becoming lone wolves), as happened in the massacres that took place in San Bernardino, California or Orlando in Florida; or if they are in contact with extremist groups (Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc.) to organize large acts of terror, as the pulling down of the twin towers and the attack on the Pentagon building.
It is raising awareness of the danger in some places and in the state of Texas and in other nineteen states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, North and South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia) has been banned the Sharia law (Islamic law), there have been introduced bills banning the courts from accommodating this law, albeit after watering them down to not even mention the word, "Sharia", because the politicians who sponsor or support such bills are accused as suffering from Islamophobia by fierce challenges from well-financed Muslim groups, that campaign against their re-election, and sue them in court, as was the case with Geert Wilder in the Netherlands. Then I pick up the comment of a US citizen, in the forum One Political Plaza, from where I took the news, in summary form: "It was time to do so. This law (Sharia) should not be applied in any place in this country. We have a country, a people, a Constitution. Our country is united by our constitutional laws. The United States should not accept the imposition of the law of another land, nation, country, people, religion or philosophy. A house divided within itself will fall. If the Muslims wants to continue with his Islamic law, they should go back to where they came from and practice it there. The Muslim leaders say they feel insulted by the outlawing of sharia law in the state of Texas; and we respond them that this is America and we do not care if they feel insulted; you are who are insulting the United States, trying to impose your Sharia law here. Do you want to live in our country? You obey our laws and adopt our way of life. You were not asked to come here. I'm sure this is the opinion of millions of American citizens not only mine"
What this American says is very clear; but I would add something else, the claim that Sharia law could be recognized in any state is not possible, because it goes against the First Amendment of the Constitution, as it would be the establishment of practices of civil or criminal law (child marriages, stoning, mutilations, etc.) based on religious criteria contrary to the customs of the country and would be to accept the official establishment of those religious criteria, to the detriment of existing legislation, according to the Constitutions of the nation and of each State. I think that this issue should be submitted to the Supreme Court of the USA by a competent executive or legislative body, in order to outlaw the Sharia law in all states of this country.
On the other hand, setting the Koran that the only religion that can exist is the Islam, declaring war against other religions and threatening to kill the believers of them, is exerting coercion, to prevent under threat the free practice of other religions; and therefore it is attacking the existence of these religions, going against the right that grant them the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: (The legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State), giving place to the imposition of an appeal requesting that the Koran, which doctrines incite the Muslims to kill those who are not believers of the Islam, to be declared outlaw and because of that declaring forbiden the religion of the Islam in the USA, while this religion does not repeal the threats aforesaid.
Let us see what says the Supreme Court: "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order". In Reynolds v. United States (1878):“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices”. This was applied to the Mormon Church in the case of poligamy. So, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g. human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee) and applying this decision to the Islam means that the legislative system could strike every practice of the Sharia law that it found disagreeable: child marriages, stoning, mutilations, etc. The Court stated that to rule otherwise: "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself, the government would exist only in name under such circumstances". "In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute"
Oct 11, 2016 11:34:14 #
Have you read the Koran? Koran requires that it is the duty of all Muslims to kill all unbelievers for their god. That is why when they kill, they shout "Allahu Akbar", meaning their god is great. Nobody among the Muslims report their fellow Muslims if they terrorize Christians because it is not allowed to be against their fellow Muslims.
You would notice that there are Muslims, who are very powerful leaders in the US, who will never say the word "Radical Islam". It is against the Koran. Koran requires Muslims to lie to achieve their goal of killing unbelievers and conquest for the sake of their god. Since the 7th century, Islam has been invading the world starting from the Christian Middle East, then Africa, and into Europe. The Crusades saved Europe during the Middle Age, drove them away from Muslims' total conquest. But Muslims lingered Europe for centuries, until the Crusades drove them away. Crusades then started civilization in Europe, and then moved into the US.
There are series of history books about Islam written by Dr. Bill Warner, PH.D in and professor in physics, now a historian. Examples are: Political Islam, LIfe of Mohammad, Tears of Jihad. This you will learn that Islam’s final goal is world conquest, especially the US and Europe, their last bastion for conquest. Though many are already here, and strategically starting for a massive success.
In the US terror cells are all over the country where they practice and hoard all kinds of weapns. They also start on Public Schools where they indoctrinate the children. This is possible because the democrats now in power, who are mostly favorable to Muslims allow them.
You would notice that there are Muslims, who are very powerful leaders in the US, who will never say the word "Radical Islam". It is against the Koran. Koran requires Muslims to lie to achieve their goal of killing unbelievers and conquest for the sake of their god. Since the 7th century, Islam has been invading the world starting from the Christian Middle East, then Africa, and into Europe. The Crusades saved Europe during the Middle Age, drove them away from Muslims' total conquest. But Muslims lingered Europe for centuries, until the Crusades drove them away. Crusades then started civilization in Europe, and then moved into the US.
There are series of history books about Islam written by Dr. Bill Warner, PH.D in and professor in physics, now a historian. Examples are: Political Islam, LIfe of Mohammad, Tears of Jihad. This you will learn that Islam’s final goal is world conquest, especially the US and Europe, their last bastion for conquest. Though many are already here, and strategically starting for a massive success.
In the US terror cells are all over the country where they practice and hoard all kinds of weapns. They also start on Public Schools where they indoctrinate the children. This is possible because the democrats now in power, who are mostly favorable to Muslims allow them.
Oct 12, 2016 02:14:48 #
Radiance3 wrote:
Have you read the Koran? Koran requires that it i... (show quote)
Everything you stated is 100% accurate! Good that you with a few others educate anyone who would listen, to the truth of not only islam but Muslims. Any Muslim that reads the Koran, hates America, Israel, and none Muslims at large, regardless how peaceful they attempt to convince someone. The exception is one claiming to be Muslim, but does not practice or read the Koran, which are few.
I recall in order to gain religious freedoms, tax free status , in the early 80's. There were some starting the church of spaghetti (really happened ) and other bizarre titles. Islam roots are in violence, hate, murder, rape (women, girls, boys), pedophilia, and the take over of every nation, man, women and child or death to all that refuse, or being a slave at the least . All strated in the mind of Muhammad an evil man. No fulfilled prophecies, no miracles, nothing to validate himself a voice of God, yet followed blindly by bilions since it's beginnings.
Islam should not have any freedoms in America. Also I keep hearing how we must afford the illegals once in America protections under the Constitution, many who are terrorist of islam. How ignorant can our leaders, media, citizens be? The Constitution and bill of rights are clear they are protections for "citizens " and until immigrantbecomes a citizen, they have no constitutional/bill of rights protections of any kind. Yet they use our courts claiming such rights. And given said rights.
I say we have every right to profile anyone that looks like, dresses like America's known Islamic enemy, and freeze our boarders, remove any illegal, as well as visa holders once visa runs out if they cannot be 100%vetted.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.