Refugee Resettlement Watch

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 5,916 other followers

  • Reaching me by mail

    You can reach me by e-mail here:

    (But my inbox is so overloaded most of the time, it is hard to keep up.)

    Or, since some of you have asked, I have a post office box and you can reach me there by snail mail!

    Ann Corcoran
    P.O. Box 55
    Fairplay, MD 21733

  • Social

  • Refugee Info Resource

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 8,055,564 hits

Speaker Ryan blasts Trump over Muslim ban, can we hear Grover in his words?

Posted by Ann Corcoran on December 9, 2015

Norquist scowl

Grover Norquist

That would be Grover Norquist of course, Ryan’s doppelgänger!  (or is it the other way around?)

Some observers who have heard Norquist opine on the joy that Islamic diversity brings to America—Muslims in the military (like the jihadist Major Hasan?) and in Congress and that it isn’t “conservatism” to worry about shariah law and devout Muslim-generated terrorism—think they heard Grover in Ryan’s speech.

If you are a new reader and have never heard of Grover Norquist, you have some catching up to do.

He is the President of Americans for Tax Reform, a longtime Washington, DC fixer, and as an Islamist has been a promoter of American Muslim ‘rights’ since before 9/11.  He is also a big fan of Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House.

Norquist: Shariah law is compatible with the US Constitution!

Be sure to read a post of mine from 2011 at Potomac Tea Party Report about Norquist’s comment to Think Progress—‘Shariah law is compatible with the US Constitution’ here.

Ryan with beard

Yes massa’! More in common than their facial hair?

And, don’t miss this!  Norquist was in the wings advising Senator Marco Rubio on the Gang of Eight bill (another of Norquist’s pet projects as a long-time advocate for amnesty and open borders).  See Grover has a new gig!

Are Norquist and Ryan working to put Rubio in the White House—that is my guess.

They will be able to control (boy) Rubio, but not Trump.

See the Washington Post gushing over Ryan’s words against Trump (Ryan also gave a shout-out to Muslim Members of Congress Keith Ellison and Andre Carson) and completely (on purpose!) misses the point of Trump’s ban which is within the power granted by the US Constitution—we have every right to determine which non-citizens we permit in the country!

(See Ryan’s dump on Trump at that Washington Post link.)

Go here to our extensive archive on Grover Norquist.  Norquist was a Bushy, but I suspect he sees that Jeb is dead (politically). And, remember this—ten big name Republicans (including Jeb) signed on to a 2014 letter (most likely drafted by Norquist) asking that Republicans support MORE refugee resettlement (click here).  We first learned of Norquist’s involvement in the Hijra here in 2007 when he was promoting the resettlement of mostly Muslim Iraqis to the US.

Action Alert!  Trump is right! Ryan is wrong! Click here and call your House members today!

Update!  Watch this Trump supporter—people are p***** . He is talking about Ryan, Rubio, Norquist and the Washington elite.

24 Responses to “Speaker Ryan blasts Trump over Muslim ban, can we hear Grover in his words?”

  1. petzlx said

    We Want The Truth


  2. […] Speaker Ryan blasts Trump over Muslim ban, can we hear Grover in his words? […]


  3. […] She gets it. Read:… […]


  4. TwoLaine said

    Here’s another good one for you.


  5. Ray Rigsby said

    Someone needs to inform Ryan of just who Carter banned from coming here after the Iran hostage affair. Another RINO that thinks all people outside the government are stupid. He should have never been given the position he has.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. “Are Norquist and Ryan working to put Rubio in the White House—that is my guess.” Mine too! The last thing we need is another liberal CINO in the White House.

    Liked by 1 person

    • TwoLaine said

      Of course they are. Jeb! is a BIG FAIL. No matter how much money his Super PAC’s got it isn’t gonna’ buy him what he wants. Rubio is OWNED. He’ll do what he is told to do. Rubio won’t make it either. He’s a slacker already and has way too much baggage.


  7. Trump is wrong and his ideas will never be implemented. He is simply an entertainer who is trolling the media and the Republicans. You know this. Stop pretending otherwise.


    • domstudent11 said

      I don’t think he is an entertainer. He has obviously tapped into what many Americans really think, but are afraid to say. Let’s put it this way: he is the American version of Putin. Have you ever seen ads for Putin? He is always portrayed as tough and unyielding. Compare that to “mom jeans” Obama. Obviously many Americans want another tough guy to stand up to the bullies of the world, not another smooth-tongued politician.

      Liked by 1 person

      • An entertainer! The man is a self-made billionaire. He is right when he says “I am the only one who can save America”. Who else in that entire line-up of Presidential wannabes can even come close to doing what he has already done: captured the reality AND the imagination of Americans at one and the same time. Like him of Loath him; Trump cannot be compared in the same breath as some shallow, Marxist-indoctrinated Hollywood star like DiCaprio. He is the real thing – and he dead serious and is coming to take America!


    • 7delta said

      Just out of curiosity, Matt, what exactly is Trump wrong about? Your statement is rather broad. Can you be specific?

      If you mean what he said about a moratorium on Islamic immigration, Trump is often blunt and artless in his choice of words, but where immigration is concerned, he is correct that Congress that halt immigration altogether or for specific persons or groups whenever these aliens are deemed dangerous or immigration does not benefit the citizens or the country.

      Just like all sovereign nations, the U.S., since it was founded (and before when colonies) the U.S. has always determined who can and cannot be admitted into its jurisdiction, which is not just Constitutional, but is the sworn duty of Congress and the executive to protect the people and the country. Those granted powers include deporting aliens for illegal entry, breaking other laws (such as visa overstays, other criminal or subversive activity, etc.,) or being deemed a threat. Right this very minute, there are lists of people who are not allowed into this country, many of whom are Muslim. Were they denied entry because of their religion or was it because of a subversive ideology? What if that subversive ideology is their religion? Does that mean we must allow them in, because of…what? Since an alien outside of U.S. jurisdiction has no Constitutional protections, and an alien on our soil has only limited rights under the Constitution, why does the 1st Amendment make any difference whatsoever, if the ideology presents a danger to the U.S., regardless of how it defines itself?

      Constitutionally, aliens have no right to come here, unless they are given permission through the proper process. From the git-go of U.S. sovereignty, SCOTUS has ruled that there are limits to religious freedom, if practices under the color of religion, are deemed unlawful, incompatible with U.S. Constitutional law or are destructive to culture and society. That’s why some “religious” practices, such as polygamy, bigamy, parenticide, infanticide, human sacrifice, etc. are unlawful.

      Look at it this way, does someone have the right to infringe on someone else’s right? I don’t mean freedom from ever seeing or being exposed to a religious expression, like nativity scenes or public prayers. That’s not infringing on another’s rights, since there is no “force of law” behind personal or community expressions, which are Constitutionally protected, that forces anyone to participate in or support that belief system, without their consent. I’m talking about “religiously” sanctioned law that requires honor killings, murder of non-believers or members who commit infractions of their laws (though the infractions are not against U.S. or State laws) committing other acts that are against U.S. and State laws (like beatings, pedophilia, marriage to underage girls, even female infants, sexual abuse of underage or pubescent boys, or obtaining a “wife” for a day or two), that denies rights to specific demographics within that religion or society at large, or demands extra-Constitutional courts to administer their law above U.S. law an or that uses violence or stealth influence to subvert the U.S. Constitution as a tactic to implement their “religious” law. Is that a religion or a subversive political ideology that uses religion as a controlling mechanism to support the political?

      Does this “religion” have 1st Amendment rights? Should any of the above be “protected?”


  8. […] WAIT, THERE’S MORE… […]


  9. babsjean15 said

    Just heard from my legislator in Nashville, TN – he said that our Constitution is such that only the state Attorney General can join the Thomas More lawsuit and our AG is appointed not elected. Here is the telephone number of the AG office 615- 741-3491 in Nashville – and here is the AG website – his name is Herbert H. Slatery III – We need to call his office and put pressure on him.

    Also our AG gave his opinion regarding preventing the Feds from settling refugees in TN here – the opinion was published in November of this year.


  10. […] Source: Speaker Ryan blasts Trump over Muslim ban, can we hear Grover in his words? […]


  11. MaddMedic said

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….


  12. TwoLaine said

    Great Video!

    Liked by 1 person

  13. sodiumpen said

    Democrats & some republicans, etc. have amnesia. I think (if I recall correctly) ***Democrat*** President Jimmy Carter stopped entries from ***Muslim*** Iran during the hostage crisis. Whether or not that was the case – this is the US Code that made Jummy’s actions (and Donald proposed policy) legal: —Was Jimmy “racist”?—

    8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens Page 138

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. […]… […]


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: