Law forbidding "Muslims" from holding Office in Congress
Apr 19, 2019 20:08:20 #
On November 18, 1990 the 101st Congress Quietly repealed the McCarran Warner Act of 1952 forbidding Muslims from holding office; members of that congress were Dick Cheney, John McCain, Joe Biden, Al Gore, John Kerry, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Shumer, Nancy Pelosi..... see the Agenda! Did this rule get swept under the rug in the last e******n?
Why did we allow the last "Muslim" to get v**ed into office? Something is rotten in Denmark, which has allowed the event to occur! Or did they reverse the McCarran Warner Act of 1952? If the 101st congress committed and acted to the reversal of this Act, why isn't the news talking about this, particularly In good old Joe Biden who will announce soon he is running for president, I believe Americans would like to know the answer to this question,I for one, would like to know?
Sincerely, Ray P. Smith, Sr.
Why did we allow the last "Muslim" to get v**ed into office? Something is rotten in Denmark, which has allowed the event to occur! Or did they reverse the McCarran Warner Act of 1952? If the 101st congress committed and acted to the reversal of this Act, why isn't the news talking about this, particularly In good old Joe Biden who will announce soon he is running for president, I believe Americans would like to know the answer to this question,I for one, would like to know?
Sincerely, Ray P. Smith, Sr.
Apr 19, 2019 20:30:32 #
proud republican
Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
Ray Smith wrote:
On November 18, 1990 the 101st Congress Quietly re... (show quote)
Hello,Ray...Welcome to OPP!!!..I hope you will enjoy the ride..Always use Quote Reply before answering somebody..Again welcome!!1.....As for your topic,unfortunately we live in strange times...Democratic Party is not the Party it used to be...It will get even worse,you will see...
Apr 19, 2019 20:30:37 #
Ray Smith wrote:
On November 18, 1990 the 101st Congress Quietly re... (show quote)
Biden announced, BTW. I don't know what's up with the McCarron Warren act of 1952. I've wondered the same. Some said it was changed in the mid 60s, some say the 90s. With what we've seen the Act was entered for good reason and should not have been changed. IMO
Apr 19, 2019 21:45:43 #
Ray Smith wrote:
On November 18, 1990 the 101st Congress Quietly re... (show quote)
So should I! Like many other laws our leaders don’t know what’s there or don’t care.
Muslims have no business in this country much less in our government. This is the roadway to destruction.
epnt
Apr 20, 2019 03:10:27 #
Carol Kelly wrote:
So should I! Like many other laws our leaders don’t know what’s there or don’t care.
Muslims have no business in this country much less in our government. This is the roadway to destruction.
epnt
Muslims have no business in this country much less in our government. This is the roadway to destruction.
epnt
On that basis you could say that Catholics have no business in this country much less in our government because of the worldwide epidemic of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic clergy. Clearly these people (Catholics) can’t be trusted and are all closet p*******es.
Apr 20, 2019 05:24:51 #
Just a teensy, weensy bit bigoted, aren’t you?
Ray Smith wrote:
On November 18, 1990 the 101st Congress Quietly re... (show quote)
Apr 20, 2019 05:26:05 #
America 1
Loc: South Miami
eden wrote:
On that basis you could say that Catholics have no business in this country much less in our government because of the worldwide epidemic of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic clergy. Clearly these people (Catholics) can’t be trusted and are all closet p*******es.
Sexual abuse not quite the same as death to all infidels, death to America, death to Isreal.
Apr 20, 2019 06:50:39 #
redpill
Loc: Oregon - not PDX
Ray Smith wrote:
On November 18, 1990 the 101st Congress Quietly re... (show quote)
I've just spent about 3 hours trying to find out about this repeal. I could not. Can you give references please.
It appears that the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 is alive and well.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=1994&req=granuleid%3AUSC-1994-title8-front&num=0&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy0xOTk0LXRpdGxlOC1zZWN0aW9uMTQyNA%3D%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7C1994
I could not find any reference to Muslims in it. There are direct bans on Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos. There are direct references to Cuba, Hawaii, Alaska, etc. And there is plenty of anti-C*******m and anti-authoritarian verbiage. This could be construed to include Islamic ideologies to some degree.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/islam-banned-u-s-1952/
The Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 amended the 1952 act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
Again no reference to "Muslims" being banned in any fashion until Trump's Executive Order 13769. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
However, I totally agree that v****g in a Muslim is a highly risky business for the country. We have no idea what her allegiances are. But if she is of one of the sects that use lying to obtain their goal of world domination, then she is very dangerous and a t*****r.
Apr 20, 2019 06:56:16 #
eden wrote:
On that basis you could say that Catholics have no business in this country much less in our government because of the worldwide epidemic of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic clergy. Clearly these people (Catholics) can’t be trusted and are all closet p*******es.
Yet Catholicism isn’t a parasite to societies like islam is.
Apr 20, 2019 07:08:04 #
maximus
Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
eden wrote:
On that basis you could say that Catholics have no business in this country much less in our government because of the worldwide epidemic of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic clergy. Clearly these people (Catholics) can’t be trusted and are all closet p*******es.
Not really, because there is no more sexual abuse in the RCC than in any other denomination. I too held your viewpoint until I was challenged to do some research and found out that some other denominations had MORE sexual abuse the the RCC. Since the abuse story came into light, the Vatican has enacted new rules to see that it never happens again.
No, I'm not Catholic. No, I'm not defending Catholicism. The t***h is the t***h and I do my very best to tell the t***h.
Apr 20, 2019 09:00:39 #
Ray Smith wrote:
On November 18, 1990 the 101st Congress Quietly re... (show quote)
This law doesn’t exist and as such was never overturned. This is a false story that was posted on and circulated on facebook. It was designed to be spread v***lly through reposting by appealing to the r****m, Islamaphobia and gullibility of dull minded Americans. While the source of this lie/f**e news has not been determined this is exactly the way Russian operators are tricking people who consider themselves patriots into acting against the nation they profess to love. Facebook is starting to work to remove such posts.
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/mar/27/facebook-posts/no-congress-didnt-repeal-law-bars-muslims-holding-/
Apr 20, 2019 09:19:32 #
Apr 20, 2019 09:19:37 #
I did not say the that the law was a pealed, it is still the law and no one in Washington follows it! My message was intended to show who in congress enacted this law, and why is it not followed by our leaders in DC!
My intent also was to point out that the i***t Joe Biden, who is going to run for President, This noose is h*****g around his neck, and why would we want a president who would ignore this law, if he would win the highest office in the land?
Sincerely, Ray P. Smith, Sr
My intent also was to point out that the i***t Joe Biden, who is going to run for President, This noose is h*****g around his neck, and why would we want a president who would ignore this law, if he would win the highest office in the land?
Sincerely, Ray P. Smith, Sr
Apr 20, 2019 09:24:19 #
Your wrong the law is entered in the books of congress and on the record, it does exist, look it up yourself?
Sincerely, Ray P. Smith, Sr.
Sincerely, Ray P. Smith, Sr.
Apr 20, 2019 09:27:53 #
Ray Smith wrote:
I did not say the that the law was a pealed, it is still the law and no one in Washington follows it! My message was intended to show who in congress enacted this law, and why is it not followed by our leaders in DC!
My intent also was to point out that the i***t Joe Biden, who is going to run for President, This noose is h*****g around his neck, and why would we want a president who would ignore this law, if he would win the highest office in the land?
Sincerely, Ray P. Smith, Sr
My intent also was to point out that the i***t Joe Biden, who is going to run for President, This noose is h*****g around his neck, and why would we want a president who would ignore this law, if he would win the highest office in the land?
Sincerely, Ray P. Smith, Sr
Ray at the bottom of each post there are three boxes that reads as follows. | Reply | Quote Reply | Report Issue. Reply allows you to reply and that is all it does. Quote Reply allows you to reply and it also brings in the name and the Quote that you are responding to so that all of us on here can follow the thinking of those that are posting. Then there is Report Issue which allows you to report and Issue with administration. Most all of us use the Quote Reply as we have found that better than playing guessing games trying to figure out as to who and what you are responding to. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.