President Trump’s executive order regarding seven terror-infested countries could not be more critical to ensuring the safety of all Americans. Those who oppose this executive order do so at their own peril and that of their fellow citizens.
First of all, there is no “Muslim ban,” contrary to what the fake news media would have you believe.

There is a ban against travel to the U.S. from seven of the highest risk countries for terrorist activity. It isn’t President Trump’s fault all seven of those countries happen to be almost entirely Islamic. If the Vatican presented the same risk for terrorism as Somalia, they too would have been listed in the executive order. Fortunately, we seem to have the Catholic suicide bomber threat under control.

For too long, Americans have been held captive by the chains of political correctness. While the election of President Trump signaled the beginning of our nation’s awakening, many would prefer we go back to sleep.

After September 11th, 2001, Americans couldn’t understand the psychology of someone who would fly a plane into a building, in exchange for what they believed would be 72 virgins in paradise. They couldn’t understand because they were assigning their own civilized ideals to Islamic radicals, whose beliefs were from a different realm.

More than a decade later, we are still battling this same enemy, which has metastasized tremendously. Not only are we struggling to eliminate Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, we are welcoming this enemy onto our shores with open arms.

Refugee resettlement from terror-ridden countries is one of the most dangerous endeavors our nation could implement.

Contrary to what some lawmakers and the fake news media have repeated, it is an incontrovertible fact that refugees have committed alarming crimes, and terrorist attacks against our nation.

To outline just a sample of these attacks:
•Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan went on a jihadi stabbing rampage at Ohio State.
•In 2016, an Iraqi refugee Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan was accused of planning to bomb a local mall in Texas.
•In September 2016, a Somali-Kenyan immigrant named Dahir Adan went on a stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
•Somali refugee Mohamed Osman Mohamed was arrested for planning to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon back in 2010.
•In 2012, Abdullatif Ali Aldosary, an Iraqi refugee, bombed a Social Security Office in Arizona.
•Two Iraqi refugees were convicted for having aided Al-Qaeda in Iraq in killing American servicemen. These so-called “refugees,” lied on their applications, and as proof that the screening process is ineffective, were allowed entry without issue.
•Both Boston Bombers, the Tsarnaev Brothers, were asylum-seekers fleeing Russia and living in Kyrgyzstan before entering the United States.

For some, the facts simply don’t matter. They are going to push their radical, anti-American, open borders propaganda no matter what.
But the average American needs to hear the truth!

Not only are we allowing large numbers of un-vetted Islamic refugees from terror haven nations, we are doing so courtesy of the U.S. tax payer. Americans are literally financing their own endangerment!

So why the continued opposition to a safer America?

While big businesses like Starbucks pathetically virtue signal by pledging to hire 10,000 refugees, what they don’t tell you is that for each refugee hired, they receive a $2,400 tax credit. You do the math.
But don’t make Starbucks feel like the Lone Ranger.  Religious institutions have also benefited financially to an enormous extent from refugee resettlement.

Catholic Charities, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, World Relief Corporation, Church World Service, and Domestic and Foreign Missionary Service of the Episcopal Church of the USA all have contracts with the federal government to resettle refugees, with a significant number of them Islamic. These religious institutions often use collection plates on Sunday that their members believe is going to help poor Christians, or the Church itself, then turn around to use them for refugee resettlement.

Within four months, these institutions have no responsibility to even know where the refugee is. It’s a beautiful thing for them. They get rich, and can still fly the false flag of moral superiority.

We cannot stay on this suicidal path any longer. Either we do what is necessary to protect our borders and our way of life, or we suffer the consequences Europe is now enduring.
One of the Islamic radicals who participated in the slaughter of innocent Parisians in November 2015 did so by gaining entry using a Syrian passport, gaining entry as a “refugee.”

Is this the future we want for ourselves? For our children?

That is why we must stand behind President Trump’s executive order, not out of “Islamophobia,” as the usual anti-American fringe proclaims, but out of safety, and common sense.

To stand in solidarity with President Trump’s executive order to protect the nation, go to actforamerica.org/petition.
The time has come to end political correctness, before it ends us.

:Brigitte Gabriel


http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/02/06/gabriel-president-trumps-e...

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 10:41am:


Yes, 'weird' is one way of describing it.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 10:54am:


Deflecting?

No deflecting here:





Comments?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 10:56am:


are they members of your family?

they sure are ugly enough to be... ugh.. 

Why does The Mechanic condone terrorism from Saudi Arabia?

Why do 3,000 deaths mean nothing to him?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 11:00am:


Silence from The Mechanic: an admission that he condones Saudi terrorism.

Does Sprint share his misguided views.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 11:17am:



I share your views, all mussies should be banned from the US and also from Australia, because they all breed filthy terrorists.

Yes why was the country with the worst record of exporting terrorists not on Donald's list?

Your thoughts Mechanic?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 11:42am:




Muslims, terrorists; if it works, it works

I couldn't give a fkk how he presents the ban, it is for filthy muslims sorry terorists and it should have included SA, and like you I agree it is a good thing to extend it as far as possible.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 11:53am:



So, you lied?

Panther wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 11:51am:




You know you made a statement about a question(asked by a third, un-named party) and that does not require an actual reply?


However  if you wanted not to be ignored as you believe you are, you should have asked a question about the question and either targeted to a specific person or asked it to a general audience. 



You weren't educated in new south wales were you?

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 12:11pm:


I don't agree with Trump's ban.

So, you lied or Trump lied - which one is it?

And, why is Saudi Arabia off the list?

What has all this stupid argument to do with the essential argument the author of the article has made.
Is she wrong or right in her argument?

To me it seems no sensible person could do other than agree with her.
And it has nothing to do with Breitbart. Did you look at the writer's experience and credentials bojack?
No you didn't did you? Just stamp it with Breitbart and.close your brain down.

An eminently sensible woman with an indisputable argument.

Clowns, the list of countries was from a terror assessment done on Obamas watch and wasn't based only on attacks done on America but on the potential of attacks and those countries internal governance, border controls,  intelligence screening and investigation capabilities and cooperation with  intelligence sharing with America.

cods wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 2:52pm:


The Royal Commission says they punch above their weight when it comes to kiddie fiddling, cods.

What do you make of that?

John Smith wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 3:13pm:


Do you have a pie?

cods wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 2:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 12:16pm:



You were the one carrying on like a loon damanding to know why the saudis were not on the list. I agree those fkken scumbags, muslim / terrorsts should be on the list..

I agreed with your demand to demand to know why the saudies were not on the list.


So I cant see where the lie is, you fkken loon.


Im with you, the more on the list the better. 

Fuzzball wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 3:20pm:


source, not sauce .... you fool

John Smith wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 8:54pm:


Nothing I said is incorrect, don't like CNN, how about DHS?

WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.

...


Last month, the United States began implementing changes under the Act. The three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals. Under the new law, the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive these restrictions if he determines that such a waiver is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States. Such waivers will be granted only on a case-by-case basis. As a general matter, categories of travelers who may be eligible for a waiver include individuals who traveled to these countries on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations, and sub-national governments on official duty; on behalf of a humanitarian NGO on official duty; or as a journalist for reporting purposes.
The addition of these three countries is indicative of the Department’s continued focus on the threat of foreign fighters. DHS continues to review the security of the Visa Waiver Program, the threat environment, and potential vulnerabilities. This is the latest step in a series of actions over the past 15 months to strengthen the security of the Visa Waiver Program and ensure the Program’s requirements are commensurate with the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters, many of whom are nationals of Visa Waiver Program countries.

http://archive.is/6MHuf

John Smith wrote on Feb 8^th, 2017 at 10:57pm:



I made no mention of the country bans v Obamas people bans, I was informing the clowns in this thread why the seven country's that Trump banned were selected, it was due to assessments by the DHA under Obama.  Nothing I said was wrong.

I also noted with bemusement your post time, instead of trolling and abusing the forum 24/7 all day and night racking up silly high post counts, get a job ya dole bludging bum.  If you spent a tenth of the energy you spend tapping away here day and night you might be able to achieve...well I dunno, probably not much, but you are achieving nuffin huffing and puffing here all day and night.

Read back the thread arse clown, nothing I said was wrong, the list of countries was from a terror assessment done on Obamas watch.   

WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.
...

Last month, the United States began implementing changes under the Act. The three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals. Under the new law, the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive these restrictions if he determines that such a waiver is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States. Such waivers will be granted only on a case-by-case basis. As a general matter, categories of travelers who may be eligible for a waiver include individuals who traveled to these countries on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations, and sub-national governments on official duty; on behalf of a humanitarian NGO on official duty; or as a journalist for reporting purposes.
The addition of these three countries is indicative of the Department’s continued focus on the threat of foreign fighters. DHS continues to review the security of the Visa Waiver Program, the threat environment, and potential vulnerabilities. This is the latest step in a series of actions over the past 15 months to strengthen the security of the Visa Waiver Program and ensure the Program’s requirements are commensurate with the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters, many of whom are nationals of Visa Waiver Program countries.

http://archive.is/6MHuf

Secret Wars wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 6:02pm:



an assessment set up with a totally different purpose.