POLL: Do You Want A Constitutional Amendment Banning Muslims From Holding Office?

Dr Abdul El-Sayed is trying to become the country’s first Muslim Governor, and this raises a question of whether or not being a practicing Muslim should disbar someone from holding high office in the US. Many are wondering if someone who puts Islam at the heart of their motivation can really serve the Constitution which is incompatible with Islamic law.

Dr. El Sayed is actually an example of migrant success in America. He is the son of an Egyptian migrant who has become a doctor and is seeking office. But there’s a problem: he wants Michigan to become a Sanctuary State.

Sanctuary Cities are economic failures and crime hotspots. The fact that a city allows illegal migrants to commit crimes and then stay in the country, only makes legal citizens lives more dangerous and their communities less safe. If the whole state of Michigan becomes a “Sanctuary”, every criminal seeking to avoid deportation will head there, bringing crime and welfare dependency.

Perhaps the question shouldn’t be about Muslims holding office, but about people holding office who promote dangerous policies that will turn their states into criminal cesspits?

OUTRAGE! POTENTIAL FIRST MUSLIM GOVERNOR IN U.S VOWS TO PUSH FOR “SANCTUARY STATE”

I’m still waiting for someone to prove me wrong on the fact that not one Muslim in politics in America is pushing any pro-American agenda points.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a liberal Democrat would like to become the nation’s first Muslim Governor in Michigan, home to the city of Dearborn, with the highest Muslim population outside of the Middle East.

The state of Michigan also made news last year when Hamtramck, a city that was long known for it’s strong Polish immigrant community, elected its first all-Muslim City Council. It’s probably not that far-fetched that the son of Egyptian immigrants living in a state where tens of thousands of Muslim refugees and immigrants come to live would want to see the state of MI become a “Sanctuary State”.

“My faith is really important to me, as it is for many Americans and Michiganders,” El-Sayed said. “But I think we should be asking ourselves rather than how one prays, or what they pray to, we should ask ourselves what [one] prays for and what one hopes for.”

While El-Sayed said his Islamic values are at the center of his work as a civil servant, he wants people to THINK his number one priority is to serve the people of Michigan.

But some residents in the state may not be ready to see a Muslim governor. In the last several years, Michigan has been a HOTBED of anti-American activity, especially in Dearborn. But El-Sayed doesn’t want Michigan residents to be distracted by anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence — and he wants people to know that the principles of Islam are what guide his service.

Source: www.usainfopolitic.com

Actress Diane Lane: “More Than Thousands Of People Died By Trump’s 2nd Amendment Than Terrorist Bloody Attacks In The Whole U.S. Wake Up America I’ts Time To Impeach Him.” Do You Agree Her?

For beginners, the 2nd Amendment is part of the United States Constitution, the Law of this Land. Therefore, contrary to what Ms. Lane has said here, the 2nd Amendment is not, cannot, be the property or possession of President Trump.

Second, the Second Amendment was inserted into the US Constitution by the Founding Fathers of this country, as a measure, a safeguard, to protect the individual citizen from the government’s natural tendency to encroach and invade.

Third, the 2nd Amendment itself cannot have contributed to the killing of people by other people armed with firearms.

The killing of one person of another with a firearm is if the intention is to destroy a human life for the mere sake of doing destruction – an act of murder which every single law in all of our statutes prohibits and seeks to punish with the Death Penalty which is neither cruel nor unusual.

Next, Ms. Lane here fails to demonstrate that there is ample evidence available to those of us who support the validity and usefulness of the Second Amendment. In her conveniently omitting all such evidence in favor of private ownership of firearms, she forfeits all credibility as an intellectually dishonest person.

Moreover, she weakens her own argument in blasting the Second Amendment for her argument in arguing for one side exclusively exposes it as fragile and easy to overcome by defenders of the citizen’s right to bear arms.

Thus, it’s easy to conclude that a beautiful face is no evidence of a sound mind.

Source: www.conservative-club.com

Congress Just Took Away Your 4th Amendment Rights In The Dead Of Night—American Taxpayers Enraged

While the bigger items on the congressional agenda – such as healthcare, for example – get all of the attention and play, the fact remains that Congress passes stuff all the time that the average American voter doesn’t have a clue about.

That’s not to suggest that voter wouldn’t understand what members of Congress are doing, but rather that they simply don’t know because it flies so far under the radar.

We’ve seen plenty of stunning examples through the years that make us all stop and think that we need to do our best to become even more aware of what’s happening behind closed doors on Capitol Hill.

Here’s another example that will make you feel that way.

Zero Hedge shares the news on a new bill that sailed through the House.

On the surface, House Joint Resolution 76 looks harmless. The title of the bill claims that its purpose is “Granting the consent and approval of Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact relating to the establishment of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission.”

“Whereas the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, an interstate compact agency of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland, provides transportation services to millions of people each year, the safety of whom is paramount; Whereas an effective and safe Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority system is essential to the commerce and prosperity of the National Capital region; Whereas the Tri-State Oversight Committee, created by a memorandum of understanding amongst these 3 jurisdictions, has provided safety oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.”

Sounds straightforward enough, but there’s a catch – and it’s one that may lead to further liberties being taken with basic rights further down the road.

However, there is one major red flag buried within the text of the bill that stems from the list of “powers” given to the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission, and it violates one of the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution.

The text gives the Commission the authority to enter property near the Metro Rail System “without limitation” and without a warrant, for the purpose of “making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing.”

This clearly goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that Americans’ rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

Alright, but if this mainly has to do with the DC metro area only, why should we get all worked up about it?

Because it completely sailed through without much of a fight, and that opens up the possibility that it can be easily expanded to include other parts of the country on a gradual basis.

If you give them an inch…

When the bill was brought to a vote in the House of Representatives, there were only five Congressmen who voted against it: Representatives Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan; Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina; Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky; Alex Mooney, a Republican from West Virginia; and Mark Sanford, a Republican from South Carolina.

Amash called out the hypocrisy surrounding the fact that even though this legislation is in clear violation of the Constitution, it was passed by Congress with overwhelming support. “Only 5 of us voted against bill allowing govt to enter/search private property in parts of VA, MD & DC w/o warrant,” He wrote on Twitter.

This is not the first time Congress has quietly passed a bill that will take away some of the most basic rights from law-abiding citizens in the U.S., and it won’t be the last. One of the most important things to remember about this legislation is that it was ignored by the media, and while it may only affect the Washington D.C. metro area now, it could be laying the blueprint for future legislation across the country.

It’s pretty frightening to imagine that only five members of Congress saw this as being some kind of a problem.

Where is the media coverage and outrage over this one?

If there’s even a whisper that something will happen with Obamacare or immigration, we’ll see an endless amount of commentary, stories, and reporting that breaks down the issue for voters.

Shouldn’t the same be happening when our personal liberties may be at stake?

Stay aware and stay informed folks, as it’s really hard to have warm and fuzzy feelings when Congress is left to implement resolutions such as this one on an unchecked basis.

Source: Zero Hedge, patriotjournal.com