Why didn't BBC publish this?
Klevius: People entangled with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family
and/or* its rape accused Wall Street terrorist scumbag Alwaleed bin
Talal, usually have problems endorsing Trump.
* Muslim rape accused scumbag
Alwaleed bin Talal in essence constitutes the Saudi dictator state's
unofficial department for spreading islamofascist hate mongering around
the world by channelling Saudi oil funds - especially targetting media,
education and politicians.
Paul Ryan unmasked:
By declaring that it would not be “proper” or “appropriate” for the
United States to consider the religion of a visa applicant— or whether
the applicant supports Sharia law or Muslim theocracy— Ryan is
effectively suggesting that the United States should not be allowed to
select whom we admit based on likelihood of assimilation.
This
view is consistent with Ryan’s two decade long history of pushing open
borders immigration policies. As NumbersUSA President Roy Beck has said,
“[Ryan] has spent his entire adulthood ideologically connected to the
open borders crowd. Open Borders is in his ideological DNA… Open borders
seeps out of every pore of his being… It’s just who he is.”
In
2013, Ryan insisted that it is the job of a U.S. lawmaker to put oneself
in the shoes of a foreign national—who does not live in the United
States, but would like to come here— and then work to find solutions to
improve the life of that foreign citizen:
Put yourself in
another person’s shoes, which if you’re in elected office, that’s what
you kind of have to do that almost every single day. The job we have–
and what we do is we take different people’s perspectives. The gentleman
from India who’s waiting for his green card… We take all these
different perspectives. We process it through our values and our morals
and our principles. And then we come up with the answer to try and solve
this problem. That’s basically what we do in our jobs.
Indeed,
Ryan was instrumental in defeating an effort to cut visa issuances
during the mid-90s, thus derailing the effort to codify into law Civil
Rights leader Barbara Jordan’s plan for substantial immigration cuts in
order to protect the American worker. As Game Change author John
Heilemann wrote in 1996, “[Ryan’s] ties to the pro-immigration mafia ran
deep.”
Hannity pressed Ryan specifically about the House’s
legislation that will allow Obama to continue the Syrian refugee
resettlement plan, which is opposed by a majority of all voters. Hannity
asked Ryan about Babin’s amendment, which as Breitbart News reported,
was “blocked [tonight] by House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) –
that would have placed a six-month moratorium on allowing refugees into
the United States.”
Hannity asked:
Are you including
the Babin amendment, which would put a pause for six months on it, or
are you not including that part [to the House’s legislation]?
Ryan replied:
This would put a pause, I believe, for longer than that. This
effectively puts a pause on the program and it will take longer than six
months, I believe, to put these kind of security…
However, Sen.
Sessions specifically debunked this claim in a statement released
earlier on Wednesday. Sessions explained that Ryan’s plan—far from
blocking Obama’s refugee resettlement project—would allow for unlimited
immigration and does nothing to strengthen the security of the American
people:
The current proposal being considered in the House in
response to the President’s dangerous refugee plan – the American SAFE
Act – fails to defend the interests of the American people… The American
SAFE Act allows the President to continue to bring in as many refugees
as he wants from anywhere in the world. With respect to Syria and Iraq,
the American SAFE Act requires only that the President direct his
Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, and
FBI Director (all his appointees) to sign off on the administration’s
screening process – a process that the White House continually asserts
is adequate and ‘ensures safety.’ The plain fact is that this bill
transfers the prerogative from Congress to President Obama and ensures
the President’s refugee resettlement initiative will continue unabated.
NumbersUSA, a pro-security immigration group, echoed Sessions’ criticism of the Ryan’s plan:
NumbersUSA is extremely disappointed in the legislation that the House
intends to put on the floor on Thursday to respond to the threat of
Islamic State-inspired terrorists infiltrating the refugee flow to the
United States… Instead of legislating that pause, or even bringing to
the floor an existing bill (H.R. 3314 by Rep. Babin) that would pause
the refugee flow, the House instead will vote to cede its responsibility
for America’s safety to the FBI, the DNI, and DHS in the hopes that
they can pick and choose correctly from a limited number of “covered”
aliens.
In the interview, however, Ryan seemed determined to
convey that the House’s bill would, in fact, “pause” refugee
resettlement—despite the contrary analyses of Sen. Sessions and
NumbersUSA.
Throughout the course of the short interview, Ryan
specifically declared seven times that the House’s legislation would
“pause” refugee resettlement.
Breitbart News has compiled Ryan’s uses of the word “pause” throughout the interview:
He [Obama] just said he’s going to veto our bill putting a pause on the
refugee program… We obviously know that ISIS wants to infiltrate the
refugee population, that’s very clear, so we need to put a pause on this
program… We have to put this bill in place which pauses the program
effectively… This [legislation] would put a pause, I believe, for longer
than [the Babin measure]. This effectively puts a pause on the program
and it will take longer than six months, I believe, to put [in place]
these kinds of security… The FBI cannot right now certify these
standards, so this [legislation] does pause the program… We are asking
all of our colleagues to support fixing this— pausing this— and getting
this right.
Ryan’s emphatic insistence that the legislation will
“pause” the refugee resettlement program may be fueled by polling data,
which shows that the American people overwhelmingly want to see the
program blocked.
As Hannity explained:
Here’s my
question though… Why don’t we just cancel it? Why don’t we just say,
‘You cannot come here, it’s too big a risk to the American people.’ I
don’t think we can fully ascertain what’s in people’s hearts. I don’t
think anybody can assure us that ISIS wouldn’t lie and create documents
and the document trail, I think they would do anything to get here. Why
don’t we just end the program and that might mean defunding the program.
Wouldn’t that be a better idea? […] We have two polls— two polls that
are out that show two-to-one the American people are against Obama
bringing in Syrian refugees altogether. I would prefer— I don’t know if
we can really fully vet anybody like this. Nor do we have the resources.
I personally am of the belief that we shouldn’t taking them in. I think
it’s too big a risk.
Ryan said, in part, that the reason the
program could not simply be canceled is because, “We’re a compassionate
country. The refugees laws are important laws and we don’t want
terrorists to dictate how we run—whether we have a law or not.”
While
throughout the interview Ryan seemed to ground his argument on the
premise that we cannot apply a religious test as a basis for admissions
to the United States, both Rush Limbaugh and Andrew McCarthy have
explained how U.S. law does, in fact, require a religious test when it
comes to making considerations about visa issuances.
McCarthy explained:
Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take
religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the
provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an
alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other
things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting
the applicant. Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the
applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That
definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code)
also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s
religion: The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any
country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to
return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear
of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.] The
law requires a “religious test… it is downright dishonest to claim that
taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American”… How
can something American law requires be “not American”?
Limbaugh said:
When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a
religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country
is admitted, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we
are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.” I would venture
to say that virtually everybody who hears him say that probably has to
nod their head in agreement. “Yeah, yeah, that’s probably right.”
Except you’d all be wrong… It’s in federal law. There are religious
tests and requirements through the United States law.. the law requires a
religious test, and the reason for the religious test is obvious…
Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion directed by law,
not a whim to address persecution… There is no right to emigrate to the
United States of America… Nowhere does the law say we must put ourselves
at risk in order to exercise this compassion…Therefore, us — we — by
maintaining our standards as established by law, protecting our national
security and sovereignty are not violating anybody’s rights by standing
up for our own.
Moreover, a provision in the Immigration and
Naturalization Act states, “In general – any immigrant who is or has
been a member of or affiliated with the communist or other totalitarian
party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is
inadmissible.”
This arguably could apply to individuals who hold
theocratic or totalitarian ideologies. In fact, in recent video footage
captured on the streets of Cedar Riverside, Minnesota, showed a number
of U.S. Muslims explaining that they preferred Sharia Law to American
law.
Regardless, every year, under Ryan’s vision the United
States can expect to continue to bring in two Muslim migrants for every
one Iowa Republican primary voter. According to Pew, by 2040, the United
States’ Muslim population is expected to surpass the nation’s Jewish
population. It is unlikely that the Muslim migrants brought in under the
nation’s current federal policy will support Ryan’s limited government
platform as only 11% of U.S. Muslim, according to Pew, are Republican or
lean-Republican. Ryan’s continued support for the visa gusher, however,
is consistent with his past statements on the matter.
When radio
talk show host David Webb asked Ryan last year whether he thought,
“immigrants from the third world are more likely or less likely to
support conservative policies,” Ryan answered that he thought
“immigrants from the third world” were “some of the best Americans”.
Ryan declared:
Some of the best Americans are the newest Americans. People who left
former Communist countries, people who left scandalous nations that are
crony capitalism that deny them their rights. So people who come from
those kinds of systems and those kinds of governments can make the best
patriots because they finally see and taste what freedom is like, and
they want to fight for it. So that kind of a person can make the best
American. And the way I look at it, from our Party’s perspective, is we
have to do a better job of going into these communities and exposing
people to a different mindset– to these principles that they may not
even have ever heard or seen before. This is a challenge that
conservatives have to answer.
Klevius declared: So Paul Ryan thinks sharia muslims want to
fight for a non-sharia US Constitution. Really? Isn't it more likely
that they continue to fight for a sharia US Constitution? With all means
available. As they have relentlessly been doing all the time.
The first amendment doesn't protect sharia islamofascism although it's
definitely the original islamic religion which started with the
slaughtering of all the Jews in Medina.
