In a truly shocking and facially unconstitutional plan, Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump is calling for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. The plan would violate a host of domestic and international protections, as I discussed today with the Washington Post.
Trump stated that “[i]t is obvious to anybody the hatred [among Muslims] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why, we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”
Trump said he would ease the ban in the case of Muslims serving in the U.S. military and allow them to return home. that is still well short of constitutional — or rational — plan. For Muslim citizens, such a plan would be grossly unconstitutional under the first and fifth amendments. The latter prohibits The depriving of individuals of “life, liberty, or property,” without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
It is certainly true that the constitutional protections often turn on whether someone is consider a “person” under the United States Constitution. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute denying funding for education to unauthorized immigrant children. Being present within the United States does afford protections of due process and equal protection. Outside of the country immigrants without resident status face a more difficult challenge. However, international law and conventions afford protections for travel and religion.
The law would harken back to the disgraceful period of the Chinese Exclusion laws. We have long rejected immigration limits based discriminatory classes of this kind. Indeed, the Immigration and Nationality Act protects potential refugees facing “fear of persecution” on account of their “religion.” Yet under President Trump we would now formally impose such a discriminatory element, a move that would make the United States a pariah around the world and immediately extinguish our relations with Islamic countries.
Immigration policy has cleared resonated as a draw for Trump. However, this proposal would openly embrace raw prejudice and blind rage as motivating factors for governmental policy. It would clearly fail in denying reentry for citizens or residents. As for non-citizens abroad, they are accorded protections under international law. Under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, people have the right to leave or enter a country and that “everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” There is no doubt murky aspects to such rights and a long-standing question of their enforceability. However, this proposal rests on flagrant religious discrimination against one group. It seeks to “protect” the United States by denying the very essence of who we are as a nation.
Ralph
Po is gonna wet his pants over that one.
po, you are really into Islamopandering 101. If Steve Jobs were raised as a Muslim, you can be absolutely certain that there would be no Apple Computer (at least not created by him). Islam is antithetical to civilization. This is why no Muslim has won a Nobel Prize in science, medicine, or economics — the real Nobel Prizes benefiting mankind, not the subjective, political ones — in more than 15 years, even though Muslims represent more than 25% of the world’s population. And even before then, only two Muslims have won such awards. In stark contrast, 75% of those awards are won by Christians and atheists and the other 25% are won by Jews, even though Jews represent less than 0.2% of the world’s population. Another key difference is that Christian and Jewish billionaires are the biggest contributors to funding education, health, art, and all of the many things that make this a civilized world. The Muslim billionaires — in stark contrast — are among the greatest contributors to Islamic terrorism worldwide and they spend zilch on civilization. As for the phony $100,000 charitable donations for the victims of the San Bernardino attack, I will grant you that it’s a clever publicity stunt. But the polls of Muslims have repeatedly shown what Muslims really feel. And there’s no hatred on my part for Muslims. They are simply incompatible with civilization and should not be part of American society. This is only the inevitable result of a cult that was developed by a pedophile and mass murderer. Nothing good could ever come from that. But please resume your Islamopandering. I realize that you won’t be happy until the USA becomes like Sweden — now the rape capital of the world, “thanks” to Muslim immigrants.
Come on, Ralph, I can’t win with you man.
Damned when we do, damned when we don’t…
If the issue is that Islam is antithetic to civilization, how do you explain that everything that western civilization is built upon, was borrowed from islamic civilization? BAM! BAM!
While you recover from that one, let me ask you, what makes one a Muslim?
Please answer, what makes one a muslim?
Please answer, what makes one a muslim?
Please answer, what makes one a muslim?
Please answer, what makes one a muslim?
Han? Han?
(Just making sure you don’t miss that question.)
I noticed how you were quite specific with the type of Nobel prizes you mention…the trope used to be that Muslims have not won nobel prizes, now it is, Muslims have not won Nobel prizes in ….
Yep, islam is violent, yet the last few nobel peace prizes were given to Muslims!
You knew that, hence the framing the nobel peace prize thus :”the real Nobel Prizes benefiting mankind, not the subjective, political ones”…hahahaha… i see you coming miles away…
Meanwhile you are using the Nobel prize are the differentiating standard WHILE at the same time undermining it.
You are giving us a whiplash!
I see you differentiate between christian, Jews, atheists and Muslims. Accordingly, I am assuming your standard is religious.
If one is a Christian arab, or a jewish arab, where do they fit in your scheme.
If one is a white scientist who converted to Islam, how does he fit into your scheme?
So if Ben carson were Muslim, he could not be a neuroscientist?
Where did you go to school? Fox news autodidact?
Or were you, by any chance, one of Paul’s students? That would explain A LOT!
By the way…Steve Jobs’ father? A Syrian immigrant…
By the way (2), Muslim Americans raised $175000 to benefit the san bernardino victims…lost in the fog of war.
I wonder how much any of our staunchest haters here gave!
nick, ralph, how much you gave?
Ralph, you already did 🙂
“Rick Shaddock is an activist for 9/11 Truth and the co-founder of the Association of Nine Eleven Truth Activists. After Shaddock was able to gain access to the press room, he asked Trump a question that left the billionaire confused and dumbfounded. “As a builder of many skyscrapers, you know they’re built to be strong,” Shaddock asked Trump, before saying “Many people have questions about how those towers came down.” “The World Trade Center?” Trump responded with confusion. After Shaddock simply answered with a “yeah,” Trump rolled his eyes, and asked, “Is this guy some kind of conspiracy guy?”
http://www.examiner.com/article/9-11-truther-heckles-donald-trump-during-campaign-event
Trump is part of the 9/11 cover up
Why The Jews Love Hillary
A quietly buried 9/11 FACT by Ken O’Keefe
Israel and Traitors in the U.S. did 9/11
https://youtu.be/42Xk_OWgJmc
Treasonous Dual Israeli Citizens Control U.S.
These Zionist Jews did 9/11
https://youtu.be/d0mkVU5tG7w
A man who absolutely refuses to be intimidated.
Donald Trump Defends Proposal To Temporary Ban Muslims
Israel Did 9-11: Christopher Bollyn
At March 1st, 2015 Conference In Santa Rosa California – Solving 9-11 Ends The War
“The government and the media were behind this massive false narrative that was being pushed on people. What we are being told is false”
“The war on terror is a complete deception, a fraud”
https://youtu.be/SP_Ezjm7xDg
Patriot – you do realize that hijacking airliners is not an Israeli tactic?
Paul H. and Paul C. Schulte both alluded to immigration quotas early in this thread.
There is the general issue of assimilation, and the fact that the foreign born U.S. population is higher than it has been in 80 years.
And that the strong cultural ties of many large immigrant groups delay or prevent assimilation. The Lybian professor who assaulted his 14 year old niece for not wearing a Habib was quoted as saying exactly that, about strong original cultural affiliations causing unacceptable behavior in America, in a JT column about a week ago.
“Honor deaths/executions of family members may be acceptable in certain cultures, but are frowned on in America. There have been some high profile incidents like this, but while not common, they are illustrative of a different mindset, a clash of cultures.
The door was virtually shut on new immigration from c. 1925 to 1965, and has been wide open ever since. The corresponding % of foreign born U.S. population has risen in lockstep ever since.
To a degree, America IS a ” melting pot”- but not to the degree my history texts claimed 100 years ago, when I was a student. There is, IMO, a point where there is more “Balkanization” than assimilation.
My belief is that we should reduce import quotas substantially, by c. 80-90%. Not by race, religion, ethnic “rapist and drug dealers” ( Trump on Mexicans), just reduce the total number, and the screening SHOULD be more effective, given the reduced number of those immigrating.
And it would, I think, allow the assimilation to “catch up” for the wave of foreign born U.S. citizens
Meet the Farooks: The Modern Jihad Family
How did this anything-but-moderate family not attract any law enforcement attention?
December 9, 2015
Robert Spencer
When Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered fourteen people and wounded twenty-one at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, Farook’s family, having lawyered up, instructed its legal representatives to tell the world how shocked – shocked! – they were by the massacre. However, just as Captain Renault is handed his winnings immediately after telling Rick Blaine of his shock that gambling was going on in Rick’s Café Americain, so also in this case did the family’s shock seem increasingly less genuine the more that became known about them.
Initially, however, the lie was fed easily to a credulous mainstream media. One of the Farook family lawyers, David Chesley, immediately found the nearest microphone and declared: “None of the family members had any idea that this was going to take place. They were totally shocked.”
Even in stories that reported this, however, the story started to unravel. No sooner had the Associated Press quoted Chesley that it noted that he and another Farook family lawyer, Mohammad Abuershaid, said that “Farook’s mother lived with the couple but she stayed upstairs and didn’t notice they had stockpiled 12 pipe bombs and well over 4,500 rounds of ammunition.”
Farook’s mother didn’t notice the twelve pipe bombs and well over 4,500 rounds of ammunition because she “stayed upstairs”? Was she an invalid, then, who never ventured downstairs at all? If so, why did the couple leave their six-month-old daughter in her care when they went off to shoot Infidels for Allah?
And now it has come out that Mom did venture downstairs now and again after all, and that her eye may indeed have caught the site of a stray pipe bomb or two. According to the Daily Mail, “FBI agents found an empty GoPro package, shooting targets and tools inside a car belonging to” Rafia Farook, Syed’s mother. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik mounted GoPro cameras on their body armor before they began their jihad massacre; apparently, like other jihad killers before them, they hoped to cheer and encourage the faithful with scenes of the bloodbath. Authorities are investigating the possibility that Rafia Farook aided in the planning and preparation of the San Bernardino jihad massacre.
Rafia might have taken this car to meetings of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), of which she was an active member. ICNA openly supports Sharia and the caliphate, and has links to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as to the Pakistani jihad group Jamaat-e-Islami.
.
The family’s shock at the murders appears even more feigned in light of revelations from Syed Rizwan Farook’s father, who is also named Syed Farook. The elder Syed has characterized his ex-wife Rafia as “very religious,” like the killer, to whom he referred as Rizwan. “Rizwan was the mama’s boy,” he recounted, “and she is very religious like him. Once we had a dispute about the historical figure of Jesus, my son yelled that I was an unbeliever and decided that marriage with my wife had to end.” The son insisted on the divorce because he considered the father an “unbeliever.”
What’s more, old man Farook said that his son was an open supporter of the Islamic State, and, of course, hated Israel: “He said he shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel.” Moderate “unbeliever” Papa then told his son to bide his time since, in the immortal words of Tom Lehrer, everybody hated the Jews: “I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there.” Moderate!
So right in the heart of sunny Redlands, California, where Syed Rizwan and Tashfeen lived with their baby and Rafia (however safely ensconced upstairs, away from the pipe bombs, Grandma may have been), there was an open supporter of the Islamic State and an open supporter of the concept of the caliphate. Then we must not forget the winsome Tashfeen, who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State during the attack, was linked to a jihadi mosque in Pakistan, and who had become, in one of her teacher’s words, “a religious person” who often told people “to live according to the teachings of Islam.”
Despite all that and more, Tashfeen passed FBI and DHS background checks and was allowed to enter the United States. And as she and her loving hubby amassed pipe bombs and thousands of rounds of ammunition, authorities didn’t bat an eye. No report has indicated that they were ever questioned, or were under any kind of surveillance, or were on any watch list.
After all, they were just pious Muslims – and anyone who believes that pious Muslims who are assembling pipe bombs might be up to no good is a racist, bigoted Islamophobe, right? But now the Farooks, the modern jihad family, and the fourteen dead left in their wake, stand as a lesson as to how urgently our law enforcement and intelligence operations need to adopt a realistic approach to the jihad threat, and to discard today’s prevailing politically correct fantasies. But the dead bodies are going to have to be piled up much higher for that reform even to become a possibility.
come on bam, you gonna go there and quote Robert Spencer? really?
Of all the islamophobes you could quote you chose the most virulent and dishonest?
Who else now?
Who else is left?
I mean, they all rehash the same tropes, why not write it yourself? What do those men have that you don’t?
The dark heart? check!
The illogical bent? check!
The extremist perspective? check!
The willingness to lie blatantly? check!
I tell you, bam, i would read it if YOU wrote it.
Jihad in San Bernardino and CAIR’s Cover-Up
The standard deflections to hide Islamic terror.
December 10, 2015
Matthew Vadum
Last week while the bodies of 14 American victims of jihadism in San Bernardino, Calif. were still warm, the terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) leapt into damage-control mode.
CAIR, which the United Arab Emirates designated a year ago as a terrorist group, got to work crafting a narrative about the mass-murdering Muslim married couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. CAIR’s immediate objective was less about defending the two dead killers than preventing Islam, the most blood-drenched religion in recorded history, from being blamed for this latest massacre committed in the name of the Islamic deity, Allah. As they fashioned a template for lazy, gullible, or sympathetic reporters to embrace, CAIR officials behaved as if Farook and Malik were strange outliers and bad Muslims.
CAIR is a U.S. outpost of international jihadism. It is an enemy propaganda organization posing as a Muslim civil rights group. It performs the same function as the Nazi-created German-American Bund in the years leading up to America’s entry into World War Two and the Communist Party USA during the Cold War. (CPUSA members were required to swear allegiance to Moscow.) Such groups propagandize on behalf of hostile foreign powers, winning some converts and neutralizing opposition.
A main goal of CAIR, whose longstanding ties to the terrorist underworld have been exhaustively documented at DiscoverTheNetworks and elsewhere, is to affect America’s domestic and foreign policy. CAIR wants to make America safe for Sharia law and bully Americans into not questioning Islam, a religion that has been generating a massive body count for 1,400 years.
In the words of one critic, CAIR exists to undermine law enforcement and U.S. national security. The group’s goal “is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.”
To recap, the morning of Wednesday, Dec. 2, Farook and his Pakistan-born wife dropped off their six-month-old daughter at her grandmother’s home. Around 11 a.m. they opened fire at the Inland Regional Center where Farook’s fellow San Bernardino Health Department employees were assembled for a training session and Christmas party. Before the attack, Malik reportedly used social media to pledge her allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. (Days after the attack, Islamic State’s official radio station praised the duo and described them as “supporters” of the group.) The couple left 14 people dead and 21 wounded and were gunned down about four hours later in a shootout with police. When their rented townhouse in Redlands was searched, authorities found thousands of rounds of ammunition and a dozen pipe bombs. It was the “75th Islamist-inspired terrorist attack or plot in the U.S.” since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the Heritage Foundation.
Before much was known about the perpetrators, the media spent the afternoon that day speculating about the shooters, predictably blaming conservatives, Tea Party supporters, and militia groups.
Left-wing politicians ghoulishly used the mass-casualty event to push for more gun control.
President Obama demanded “common sense gun safety laws” and called for a law blocking individuals on the “No Fly List” from legally purchasing firearms, a measure that would almost certainly violate the Constitution.
Democratic candidates for president tripped over each other as they raced to express choreographed outrage on Twitter. Hillary Clinton urged “action to stop gun violence.” Bernie Sanders whined, “This sickening and senseless gun violence must stop.” Martin O’Malley declared, “Enough is enough: it’s time to stand up to the @NRA and enact meaningful gun safety laws.”
But after a few hours details of the assault began to surface and the Left lost control of the narrative as it became increasingly obvious this was a jihadist attack.
As soon as Farook was publicly identified as a suspect, CAIR set up a presser for that evening.
“We condemn this horrific and revolting attack and offer our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of all those killed or injured,” CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush said in an announcement posted on Facebook. “The Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Americans in repudiating any twisted mindset that would claim to justify such sickening acts of violence.”
At the hastily arranged press conference, Farhan Khan, brother-in-law of Farooq, was paraded before the TV cameras to say, well, nothing — at least nothing that implicated Islam in the killings.
Asked if Farook was religious, Khan stumbled. “There’s no comment. I mean, [the] investigation is going on. You would know what it is. I have no idea. I have no idea. Why would he do that? Why would he do something like this? I have absolutely no idea. I am in shock myself. I’m [a] normal person.”
Khan’s handler, Ayloush, who is also a California Democratic Party executive, pretended Islam played no role in the attack.
“We don’t know the motive. Is it work, rage-related? Is it mental illness? Is it extreme ideology? At this point it’s really unknown to us and it is too soon for us to speculate.”
Two days later, Ayloush changed his tune, blaming America for the shootings. “Let’s not forget that some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West, have fueled that extremism,” he told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “We are partly responsible. Terrorism is a global problem, not a Muslim problem. And the solution has to be global. Everyone has a role in it.”
At the Dec. 2 presser, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, religious director of the Islamic Society of Orange County, also exonerated Islam. “We have condemned all violence everywhere because human life is precious and we respect and honor the human life,” he said.
“At the same time I would urge everyone to please do not implicate Islam or Muslims because what, whosoever has done that, our faith has nothing to do with that it. Our faith is against this kind of behavior.”
But that’s not the kind of thing Siddiqi said previously, according to reports.
Siddiqi praised suicide bombers in 1995, saying, “Those who die on the part of justice are alive, and their place is with the Lord, and they receive the highest position, because this is the highest honor.”
In a 2000 White House protest against Israel, he said, “America has to learn — if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come!”
In 2007 Siddiqi defended jihad. He described jihad as,
a struggle for peace and justice, so that you establish peace in the world, you establish justice in the world, and defend your own rights — the right of life, the right of property, the right of dignity and honor and freedom, and the right of your religion. So you defend yourself for that, and you defend other people who are suffering and oppressed. So jihad may take a military action, but it is not always a military action.
The Sunday Times’ (UK) Washington bureau chief Toby Harnden was appalled by the presser. At 11:58 p.m. he tweeted, “This CAIR press conference is kind of an obscenity. It shouldn’t be carried live on air.”
Seven minutes later he seemed to imply the press conference was Muslim propaganda. “Weird weird weird @CNN right now. No mention of Islam & then live to CAIR presser w[ith] multiple people saying it’s nothing to do with Islam.”
Not surprisingly, CAIR’s Religion of Peace storyline was barely challenged by the media. Instead the media focused on Farook and Malik, scratching its head as it searched for a motive for the killings. The couple’s ties to Islamic terrorist groups were examined but the violence that has been part and parcel of Islam since it was created went unexplored. A valuable opportunity to educate the public about Islam and its incompatibility with free societies was missed.
And the fact that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton feels free to feature the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Huma Abedin in a “I am proud to be a Muslim” fundraising email campaign underscores how ignorant the media, Democrats, and even some Republicans are about the nature of Islam even though it is infiltrating American institutions right before their eyes.
GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s proposal about banning Muslim immigration resonates with Americans not because they are bigoted but because they are painfully aware that the Obama administration is not only not defending Islamists but is providing them with political cover and excuses.
Americans are sick and tired of being lied to.
bambam, thank you for making Jews fair game.
have the decency therefore to take it as a man when you get it back.
Who’s The Crazy One?
Why Trump’s Muslim ban resonates.
December 10, 2015
David Horowitz
Presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we can figure out why Islamic terrorists have been able to enter our country and devised ways to protect ourselves. This has caused the left and right establishments to dogpile on Trump. Echoing the sentiments of virtually all Democrats and many Republicans, a Washington Post editorial has declared that Trump’s proposal disqualifies him as a candidate because in the Post’s view what he recommends is unconstitutional and therefore un-American. But President Obama has issued executive orders – as it happens orders that sabotage our borders – that he himself has called unconstitutional (“I don’t have the authority to stop deportations”). Has the Post editorialized that this is un-American and disqualifies him for the presidency? Has it called for Obama to be impeached? Have Democrats ridiculed Obama for his un-American prescriptions?
Consider the nature of the threat. A 2009 “World Opinion” survey by the University of Maryland showed that between 30 and 50% of Muslims in Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic countries approved of the terrorist attacks on America and that only a minority of Muslims “entirely disapproved” of them. ISIS has acknowledged its plans to use refugee programs to infiltrate its terrorists into the United States and other infidel countries. In Minneapolis we have a Somali refugee community many of whose members have returned to Syria to fight for ISIS. Other Muslim immigrants like Major Hassan and Tashfeen Malik have carried out barbaric acts of terror here at home. Today Muslim terrorists are using assault rifles and pipe bombs, but we know they have Sarin gas and other chemical weapons which they might use tomorrow. The terrorists inexorably arrive along with the other immigrants, no one in authority apparently knowing who’s who. Who, then, in his right mind does not think that Muslim immigration poses a serious security threat to us?
The outrage against Trump should properly have been directed at our president who refuses to identify the enemy as Islamic terrorism, who has opened the door to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to the Islamic America-haters in Iran, whose policies have created the vacuums that ISIS has filled, and who even after Paris and San Bernardino is determined to bring 100,000 immigrants from Syrian war zones to our unprotected shores. This outrage is missing and it is precisely because it is missing that Trump’s unconstitutional proposal resonates with so many rightly concerned Americans. When the man in charge of our security is by general consensus out to lunch in regard to fighting the war on Islamic terror, or protecting us at home, a proposal like Trump’s, which at least recognizes the threat, is going to resonate with the public.
In middle of a crisis of national security, the Democratic Party seems to think that climate change and especially gun ownership are greater threats to our survival than the one that comes from hundreds of millions of Muslims who think America should be attacked and who believe the whole world should be put under medieval Islamic law. In the face of this threat, the Democratic Party and its leaders seem to have no problem with the fact that we have more than 350 “Sanctuary Cities” that are dedicated to sabotaging our immigration laws; that we have no southern border and as a result have 179,000 illegal alien criminals and who knows how many terrorists in our country today.
Once again we have Trump to thank for changing the surreal conversation about whether having a border at all is compatible with American values, and forcing people to focus on the dangers we face. Republicans are generally defenders of this country, but not in this controversy over Donald Trump. Would that they would use the same ridicule and outrage over the Democrats’ many betrayals of our country and its citizens through proposals to expose us to our enemies as they do over a proposal to protect us from them. Trump’s idea may be unconstitutional and unworkable, but it springs from a desire that is honorable and patriotic. The appropriate response would be to propose alternatives that recognize the same dangers and serve the same ends but do so within constitutional limits.
Donald Trump’s great contribution is saying the unsayable; putting things on the table that would otherwise be buried; calling a spade a spade in a time when political correctness has made us unable to discuss things that have to do with our basic national survival. This is the crux of the issue. Every time he creates a controversy like this he also tells this country that its emperors, Republican and Democrat, have no clothes. That they prefer propriety over defending the country. That they are dedicated only to keeping the lid on a cauldron of threat and challenge they have allowed to boil over.
The 2016 election will be a referendum on the defense of this country and its survival. Let’s see who answers the call.
Trump is part of the Zionist 9/11 cover up
Israel & American Traitors did 9/11
Dr. Alan Sabrosky former Director of Studies, professor of the U.S. Army War College;
“It is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation period”
The 9/11 Commission Report is a 571-Page Zionist Lie
Why the military knows Israel did 9/11
https://youtu.be/kVKGRB3cygg
Patroit – as great a title as Dr. Alan Sabrosky former Director of Studies sounds, he was only a paper shuffler. He didn’t direct studies and he did not do studies. He was a glorified file clerk.
As you can see WTC 7 is not engulfed by fire. Besides fire has never brought down one of these steel framed structures.
Trump will LIE about WTC 7. He has not mentioned WTC 7 has he?
He is corrupt and will agree with the official 9/11 story. Trump is part of the 9/11 Zionist cover up.
Israel and American traitors did 9/11. The truth about 9/11 will collapse the U.S. / Israel tyranny.
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/10/9882762/trump-missing-white-voters “As Brian Beutler put it in July, Trump is frightening Republicans in part because he’s “showing them what it takes” to run and win as the party of disaffected white people in an increasingly nonwhite country. They don’t like what they see, but as a movement they’ve committed to the kind of political strategy that he was pursuing — a strategy built around the notion that the 2012 election featured a pile of “missing” white voters who could be activated to push the GOP to victory without it needing to do anything to broaden its demographic appeal.”