What will Obama do

Skeptical Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:16 pm

Gov. Jindal of Louisiana sent the following letter to Obama. Will Obama respond and what will he say?

November 14, 2015

The Honorable Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama,

In the wake of another round of appalling terrorist attacks, I write to express great sadness at the events in Paris, as well as my grave concern about the unreported diffusion of Syrian refugees in the United States.

Last week, the city of New Orleans began receiving its first wave of Syrian refugees. As with former immigration crises and federal relocation policy, Louisiana has been kept in the dark about those seeking refuge in the state. It is irresponsible and severely disconcerting to place individuals, who may have ties to ISIS, in a state without the state's knowledge or involvement.

As Governor of Louisiana, I demand information about the Syrian refugees being placed in Louisiana in hopes that the night of horror in Paris is not duplicated here. In the wake of these atrocities, I also ask for details on the below:

What level of background screening was conducted prior to entry in the United States?
In light of the fact that some of those responsible for last night's attacks held Syrian passports, what additional protections and screenings will be put in place?

Will all Syrian refugees seeking relocation in the United States now be cleared by the Terrorist Screening Center?
What degree of monitoring will be sustained after initial placement in Louisiana?

As Americans, we embolden freedom and opportunity to the rest of the world, but by opening up our borders and refusing to collaborate or share information with states, you are threatening that reality.

Mr. President, in light of these attacks on Paris and reports that one of the attackers was a refugee from Syria, it would be prudent to pause the process of refugees coming to the United States. Authorities need to investigate what happened in Europe before this problem comes to the United States.

Sincerely,
Governor Bobby Jindal

http://www.katc.com/story/30519158/jindal-demands-answers-about-syrian-refugees-arriving-to-louisiana-after-paris-attacks

Clicker Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:23 am

Simple, he'll obfuscate when he can no longer simply remain silent then hold his breath till another mini-crisis hits the news cycle and he can breath again. gives new meaning to "I can't breath!!!!".

Skeptical Mon Nov 16, 2015 12:06 pm

IIRC the MT suit HMWAIC wants to or is bringing in 10,000, mostly unverified refugees to this country.

Rather than scatter these people out among the several states there is a better place surrounded by a high fence.

Put them at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington DC.

Gomezz Adddams Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:18 pm

Skeptical wrote:
IIRC the MT suit HMWAIC wants to or is bringing in 10,000, mostly unverified refugees to this country.

Rather than scatter these people out among the several states there is a better place surrounded by a high fence.

Put them at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington DC.

Bernie and Cankles have upped the ante to 60,000. Of course none would be within a 100 miles of Chappaqua or Burlington. Sweet mother of god, save us from these dilettantes.

Dr. Evil Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:45 pm

We have a rich history of humanitarian aid and liberation in this country. A history that I happen to be very proud of. It's sad to see some toss that aside so easily for political gain. It's only been three days. Nobody said this war on terror would be easy. Why is it that the first ones to push for a conflict are the first ones to whine like a little bitch? Settle down and let people do their jobs.

Gomezz Adddams Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:57 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:We have a rich history of humanitarian aid and liberation in this country. A history that I happen to be very proud of. It's sad to see some toss that aside so easily for political gain. It's only been three days. Nobody said this war on terror would be easy. Why is it that the first ones to push for a conflict are the first ones to whine like a little bitch? Settle down and let people do their jobs.

Platitudes and bromides is all you have to offer with your bumper sticker history. During WWI the US instituted an immigrant literacy test denying entry to any alien over 16 yo who was unable to read 30–40 words in their own language. WWI also saw the enactment of the Emergency Quota Act setting quotas from every national origin group at the baseline of 3% of the foreign-born population of that country in 1910.

During WWII the US State Dept implemented strict policies for Europeans, in particular Germans, Jews, Hungarians and Italians, out of the fear that those refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany. It wasn't until early 1944 that restrictions were loosened for European Jews. Even after the War relief was slow in coming and it wasn't until 1948 that Congress enacted legislation to admit 400,000 displaced persons of which only 20% were Jews. By then many European Jews had emigrated to the new state of Israel.

Gomezz Adddams Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:09 pm

On October 21st, FBI Director James Comey in testimony before the House Committee hearing on Homeland Security stated “We can only query against that which we have collected and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.” He continued pointing out the differences between our ability to screen Syrian refugees vs Iraq refugees after the Iraq War. “And with respect with Iraqi databases, we had far more because of our country’s work there for a decade,” he said. This is a different situation'”

Running that through my Official Gubmint BS Decoder Ring™, the US does not have the means or the ability to perform background checks and effectively screen Syrian refugees for terrorist ties on the expected 10,000. Let's not even think about 60,000.

Clicker Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:10 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:We have a rich history of humanitarian aid and liberation in this country.

That's true. We should however stop bringing folks who want to kill us closer so they don't have to travel far to carry out their death wish.

It reminds me of a situation in Calif. We lived in a small 8 family group on a grapefruit grove. There were several groups like that in the area. The citrus growers around us had been forced to sell their groves due to Mello-Roos taxes coming due. As the "Master Plan" for development was being formed a group of Liberal advocates for the unwashed masses was demanding that section 8 housing (low rent apartments) be included in the plan. Now the area I lived in was overwhelmingly Liberal infested. When word got around about that part of the plan they organized a group and invaded city hall and council meetings howling and screeching till the plan was changed to allow more section 8 housing in an area already infested by druggies and felons on parole. I did have a great laugh in the end because what they got was an elementary school. The little vermin and their abeting parents are almost as bad as convicted felons in that the cops protect them and not the felons.

NIMBY is a harsh and telling malady to have but it's heartening to see it when Libs are being "violated".

Dr. Evil Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:55 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:We have a rich history of humanitarian aid and liberation in this country. A history that I happen to be very proud of. It's sad to see some toss that aside so easily for political gain. It's only been three days. Nobody said this war on terror would be easy. Why is it that the first ones to push for a conflict are the first ones to whine like a little bitch? Settle down and let people do their jobs.

Platitudes and bromides is all you have to offer with your bumper sticker history. During WWI the US instituted an immigrant literacy test denying entry to any alien over 16 yo who was unable to read 30–40 words in their own language. WWI also saw the enactment of the Emergency Quota Act setting quotas from every national origin group at the baseline of 3% of the foreign-born population of that country in 1910.

Given the context of the conversation, this example is irrelevant. WWI was just good old fashioned penis envy that displaced continents full of bystanders. The limitations weren't based on fear as they are today. There also wasn't the type of persecution we saw in WWII, or in Syria today.

[size=32]http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1917_immigration_act.html
[/size]
[size=32]http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1921_emergency_quota_law.html

[/size]
During WWII the US State Dept implemented strict policies for Europeans, in particular Germans, Jews, Hungarians and Italians, out of the fear that those refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany. It wasn't until early 1944 that restrictions were loosened for European Jews. Even after the War relief was slow in coming and it wasn't until 1948 that Congress enacted legislation to admit 400,000 displaced persons of which only 20% were Jews. By then many European Jews had emigrated to the new state of Israel.

WWII was a bit trickier, and unfortunately not some of our brighter days. It was religiously based racism/anti-Semitism that kept us from helping the Jews. We didn't want "their kind" here polluting our Christian utopia. But when word of the genocide started to spread in mid '42 that all started to change. By '44 we finally took action.
[size=32]
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-ii/resources/immigration-policy-world-war-ii[/size]

One thing we can't overlook is the fact that there was never the type of zero tolerance policy being touted by some today. The number of refugees we are talking about is a fraction of even the most stringent policies we've ever had.

The other thing is that IMO helping these refugees is an integral part of beating these Muslim extremists. Turning them away will only give ISIS more power than we've already given them. As I said, nobody said this would be easy, it's time we put our money where our mouth is.

Skeptical Tue Nov 17, 2015 12:43 am

Dr. Jones wrote:The other thing is that IMO helping these refugees is an integral part of beating these Muslim extremists. Turning them away will only give ISIS more power than we've already given them. As I said, nobody said this would be easy, it's time we put our money where our mouth is.

You will have to wait until the governor of your good state says, "Yay" or "Nay" joining either the 26 who say no or joining the 7 states accepting refugees.

How many unvetted background Syrian refugees are you taking in?
(time to put your money where your mouth is)

Dr. Evil Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:25 am

Skeptical wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:The other thing is that IMO helping these refugees is an integral part of beating these Muslim extremists. Turning them away will only give ISIS more power than we've already given them. As I said, nobody said this would be easy, it's time we put our money where our mouth is.

You will have to wait until the governor of your good state says, "Yay" or "Nay" joining either the 26 who say no or joining the 7 states accepting refugees.

How many unvetted background Syrian refugees are you taking in?
(time to put your money where your mouth is)

I don't have enough bedrooms for my own family, much less anyone else.

Clicker Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:34 am

Those who make the argument that "It's ust a few, they wont bother anyone" should talk to people who are trying to control rabbits in Australia or Zebra Mussels , or Lampreys, or any of the other invasive species we get all het up about. Yes, they are just a few, we'll see what the limo libs have to say when the "few" are running local govts with their eyes n the Governorships and even the Presidency. At this time we have just about the closest thing to a Muslim in the WH as I ever want to see and look at the huge failures of leadership and governance we've seen.

Dr. Evil Tue Nov 17, 2015 12:42 pm

Skeptical wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:The other thing is that IMO helping these refugees is an integral part of beating these Muslim extremists. Turning them away will only give ISIS more power than we've already given them. As I said, nobody said this would be easy, it's time we put our money where our mouth is.

You will have to wait until the governor of your good state says, "Yay" or "Nay" joining either the 26 who say no or joining the 7 states accepting refugees.

How many unvetted background Syrian refugees are you taking in?
(time to put your money where your mouth is)

You're a buffoon. Do you really think that taking refugees into your home is the only way you can help them out? How many people would be able to house another entire family in their home? Very few. That's absurd. How about start with not supporting those who try to keep others from helping them? How about giving money to help with renting a place somewhere else? This all seems pretty obvious.

Skeptical Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:12 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:The other thing is that IMO helping these refugees is an integral part of beating these Muslim extremists. Turning them away will only give ISIS more power than we've already given them. As I said, nobody said this would be easy, it's time we put our money where our mouth is.

You will have to wait until the governor of your good state says, "Yay" or "Nay" joining either the 26 who say no or joining the 7 states accepting refugees.

How many unvetted background Syrian refugees are you taking in?
(time to put your money where your mouth is)
You're a buffoon. Do you really think that taking refugees into your home is the only way you can help them out? How many people would be able to house another entire family in their home? Very few. That's absurd. How about start with not supporting those who try to keep others from helping them? How about giving money to help with renting a place somewhere else? This all seems pretty obvious.

Oh my, what a display of hostility!

Have you made arrangement to attend anger management sessions?

By the way, what town are you renting a place for these refugees to live/stay?

nightlight88 Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:26 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:We have a rich history of humanitarian aid and liberation in this country. A history that I happen to be very proud of. It's sad to see some toss that aside so easily for political gain. It's only been three days. Nobody said this war on terror would be easy. Why is it that the first ones to push for a conflict are the first ones to whine like a little bitch? Settle down and let people do their jobs.

Platitudes and bromides is all you have to offer with your bumper sticker history. During WWI the US instituted an immigrant literacy test denying entry to any alien over 16 yo who was unable to read 30–40 words in their own language. WWI also saw the enactment of the Emergency Quota Act setting quotas from every national origin group at the baseline of 3% of the foreign-born population of that country in 1910.

Given the context of the conversation, this example is irrelevant. WWI was just good old fashioned penis envy that displaced continents full of bystanders. The limitations weren't based on fear as they are today. There also wasn't the type of persecution we saw in WWII, or in Syria today.

[size=32]http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1917_immigration_act.html
[/size]
[size=32]http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1921_emergency_quota_law.html

[/size]
During WWII the US State Dept implemented strict policies for Europeans, in particular Germans, Jews, Hungarians and Italians, out of the fear that those refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany. It wasn't until early 1944 that restrictions were loosened for European Jews. Even after the War relief was slow in coming and it wasn't until 1948 that Congress enacted legislation to admit 400,000 displaced persons of which only 20% were Jews. By then many European Jews had emigrated to the new state of Israel.

WWII was a bit trickier, and unfortunately not some of our brighter days. It was religiously based racism/anti-Semitism that kept us from helping the Jews. We didn't want "their kind" here polluting our Christian utopia. But when word of the genocide started to spread in mid '42 that all started to change. By '44 we finally took action.
[size=32]
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-ii/resources/immigration-policy-world-war-ii[/size]

One thing we can't overlook is the fact that there was never the type of zero tolerance policy being touted by some today. The number of refugees we are talking about is a fraction of even the most stringent policies we've ever had.

The other thing is that IMO helping these refugees is an integral part of beating these Muslim extremists. Turning them away will only give ISIS more power than we've already given them. As I said, nobody said this would be easy, it's time we put our money where our mouth is.

How many will YOU be taking into your home? Until YOU are taking one or more in to feed, house, healthcare, nurture, you can STFU.

Skeptical Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:45 pm

Look out nightlight88, you may get the full frontal anger assault for asking that question !

Dr. Evil Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:51 pm

Skeptical wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:The other thing is that IMO helping these refugees is an integral part of beating these Muslim extremists. Turning them away will only give ISIS more power than we've already given them. As I said, nobody said this would be easy, it's time we put our money where our mouth is.

You will have to wait until the governor of your good state says, "Yay" or "Nay" joining either the 26 who say no or joining the 7 states accepting refugees.

How many unvetted background Syrian refugees are you taking in?
(time to put your money where your mouth is)
You're a buffoon. Do you really think that taking refugees into your home is the only way you can help them out? How many people would be able to house another entire family in their home? Very few. That's absurd. How about start with not supporting those who try to keep others from helping them? How about giving money to help with renting a place somewhere else? This all seems pretty obvious.

Oh my, what a display of hostility!

Have you made arrangement to attend anger management sessions?

By the way, what town are you renting a place for these refugees to live/stay?

What hostility?

Haven't seen any.

Dr. Evil Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:06 pm

nightlight88 wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:We have a rich history of humanitarian aid and liberation in this country. A history that I happen to be very proud of. It's sad to see some toss that aside so easily for political gain. It's only been three days. Nobody said this war on terror would be easy. Why is it that the first ones to push for a conflict are the first ones to whine like a little bitch? Settle down and let people do their jobs.

Platitudes and bromides is all you have to offer with your bumper sticker history. During WWI the US instituted an immigrant literacy test denying entry to any alien over 16 yo who was unable to read 30–40 words in their own language. WWI also saw the enactment of the Emergency Quota Act setting quotas from every national origin group at the baseline of 3% of the foreign-born population of that country in 1910.

Given the context of the conversation, this example is irrelevant. WWI was just good old fashioned penis envy that displaced continents full of bystanders. The limitations weren't based on fear as they are today. There also wasn't the type of persecution we saw in WWII, or in Syria today.

[size=32]http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1917_immigration_act.html
[/size]
[size=32]http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1921_emergency_quota_law.html

[/size]
During WWII the US State Dept implemented strict policies for Europeans, in particular Germans, Jews, Hungarians and Italians, out of the fear that those refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany. It wasn't until early 1944 that restrictions were loosened for European Jews. Even after the War relief was slow in coming and it wasn't until 1948 that Congress enacted legislation to admit 400,000 displaced persons of which only 20% were Jews. By then many European Jews had emigrated to the new state of Israel.

WWII was a bit trickier, and unfortunately not some of our brighter days. It was religiously based racism/anti-Semitism that kept us from helping the Jews. We didn't want "their kind" here polluting our Christian utopia. But when word of the genocide started to spread in mid '42 that all started to change. By '44 we finally took action.
[size=32]
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-ii/resources/immigration-policy-world-war-ii[/size]

One thing we can't overlook is the fact that there was never the type of zero tolerance policy being touted by some today. The number of refugees we are talking about is a fraction of even the most stringent policies we've ever had.

The other thing is that IMO helping these refugees is an integral part of beating these Muslim extremists. Turning them away will only give ISIS more power than we've already given them. As I said, nobody said this would be easy, it's time we put our money where our mouth is.

How many will YOU be taking into your home? Until YOU are taking one or more in to feed, house, healthcare, nurture, you can STFU.

Already answered.

nightlight88 Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:08 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
nightlight88 wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:We have a rich history of humanitarian aid and liberation in this country. A history that I happen to be very proud of. It's sad to see some toss that aside so easily for political gain. It's only been three days. Nobody said this war on terror would be easy. Why is it that the first ones to push for a conflict are the first ones to whine like a little bitch? Settle down and let people do their jobs.

Platitudes and bromides is all you have to offer with your bumper sticker history. During WWI the US instituted an immigrant literacy test denying entry to any alien over 16 yo who was unable to read 30–40 words in their own language. WWI also saw the enactment of the Emergency Quota Act setting quotas from every national origin group at the baseline of 3% of the foreign-born population of that country in 1910.

Given the context of the conversation, this example is irrelevant. WWI was just good old fashioned penis envy that displaced continents full of bystanders. The limitations weren't based on fear as they are today. There also wasn't the type of persecution we saw in WWII, or in Syria today.

[size=32]http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1917_immigration_act.html
[/size]
[size=32]http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1921_emergency_quota_law.html

[/size]
During WWII the US State Dept implemented strict policies for Europeans, in particular Germans, Jews, Hungarians and Italians, out of the fear that those refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany. It wasn't until early 1944 that restrictions were loosened for European Jews. Even after the War relief was slow in coming and it wasn't until 1948 that Congress enacted legislation to admit 400,000 displaced persons of which only 20% were Jews. By then many European Jews had emigrated to the new state of Israel.

WWII was a bit trickier, and unfortunately not some of our brighter days. It was religiously based racism/anti-Semitism that kept us from helping the Jews. We didn't want "their kind" here polluting our Christian utopia. But when word of the genocide started to spread in mid '42 that all started to change. By '44 we finally took action.
[size=32]
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-ii/resources/immigration-policy-world-war-ii[/size]

One thing we can't overlook is the fact that there was never the type of zero tolerance policy being touted by some today. The number of refugees we are talking about is a fraction of even the most stringent policies we've ever had.

The other thing is that IMO helping these refugees is an integral part of beating these Muslim extremists. Turning them away will only give ISIS more power than we've already given them. As I said, nobody said this would be easy, it's time we put our money where our mouth is.

How many will YOU be taking into your home? Until YOU are taking one or more in to feed, house, healthcare, nurture, you can STFU.
Already answered.

It would have taken less key strokes to tell me the number than 'already answered'

Does -0- sound about right for you?

Dr. Evil Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:15 pm

nightlight88 wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
nightlight88 wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:We have a rich history of humanitarian aid and liberation in this country. A history that I happen to be very proud of. It's sad to see some toss that aside so easily for political gain. It's only been three days. Nobody said this war on terror would be easy. Why is it that the first ones to push for a conflict are the first ones to whine like a little bitch? Settle down and let people do their jobs.

Platitudes and bromides is all you have to offer with your bumper sticker history. During WWI the US instituted an immigrant literacy test denying entry to any alien over 16 yo who was unable to read 30–40 words in their own language. WWI also saw the enactment of the Emergency Quota Act setting quotas from every national origin group at the baseline of 3% of the foreign-born population of that country in 1910.

Given the context of the conversation, this example is irrelevant. WWI was just good old fashioned penis envy that displaced continents full of bystanders. The limitations weren't based on fear as they are today. There also wasn't the type of persecution we saw in WWII, or in Syria today.

[size=32]http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1917_immigration_act.html
[/size]
[size=32]http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1921_emergency_quota_law.html

[/size]
During WWII the US State Dept implemented strict policies for Europeans, in particular Germans, Jews, Hungarians and Italians, out of the fear that those refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany. It wasn't until early 1944 that restrictions were loosened for European Jews. Even after the War relief was slow in coming and it wasn't until 1948 that Congress enacted legislation to admit 400,000 displaced persons of which only 20% were Jews. By then many European Jews had emigrated to the new state of Israel.

WWII was a bit trickier, and unfortunately not some of our brighter days. It was religiously based racism/anti-Semitism that kept us from helping the Jews. We didn't want "their kind" here polluting our Christian utopia. But when word of the genocide started to spread in mid '42 that all started to change. By '44 we finally took action.
[size=32]
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-ii/resources/immigration-policy-world-war-ii[/size]

One thing we can't overlook is the fact that there was never the type of zero tolerance policy being touted by some today. The number of refugees we are talking about is a fraction of even the most stringent policies we've ever had.

The other thing is that IMO helping these refugees is an integral part of beating these Muslim extremists. Turning them away will only give ISIS more power than we've already given them. As I said, nobody said this would be easy, it's time we put our money where our mouth is.

How many will YOU be taking into your home? Until YOU are taking one or more in to feed, house, healthcare, nurture, you can STFU.
Already answered.

It would have taken less key strokes to tell me the number than 'already answered'

Does -0- sound about right for you?

As I said, I have no room in my house. I would be glad to help out monetarily if given the opportunity. I would be glad to take a proportional number of refugees "in my back yard". What else do you want?

Skeptical Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:09 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:As I said, I have no room in my house. I would be glad to help out monetarily if given the opportunity. I would be glad to take a proportional number of refugees "in my back yard". What else do you want?

Well, you are spared the task of cleaning up the yard and letting them live there plus possibly feeding them because your governor now has joined over 30 others and say "NO" to refugees.

Skeptical Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:00 pm

The states opposed to allowing the Syrian refugees entry now numbering 31!

Dr. Evil Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:18 pm

Skeptical wrote:The states opposed to allowing the Syrian refugees entry now numbering 31!

You sure do pick interesting things to cheer about.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:35-40

May God show you more mercy than you show others...

Skeptical Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:51 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Skeptical wrote:The states opposed to allowing the Syrian refugees entry now numbering 31!
You sure do pick interesting things to cheer about.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:35-40

May God show you more mercy than you show others...

Just performing a public service by keeping you updated on the number of states opposed to Obama's engineered Islamic invasion of the country.

Dr. Evil Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:06 pm

Skeptical wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Skeptical wrote:The states opposed to allowing the Syrian refugees entry now numbering 31!
You sure do pick interesting things to cheer about.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:35-40

May God show you more mercy than you show others...

Just performing a public service by keeping you updated on the number of states opposed to Obama's engineered Islamic invasion of the country.

Suuure you are. Rolling Eyes

Do you think God would approve of this?

Sponsored content

What will Obama do

What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do

Re: What will Obama do