Mar 23, 2017

While Liberal America Laments The Travel Ban





The UK has banned me from speaking because of my work opposing jihad terror and supporting Israel, but Prime Minister Theresa May allows these devout Islamic hate preachers to spew their venomous poison anywhere and everywhere. You can avoid reality, Ms. May, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Pamela Geller 3/22/17


Terror attacks are part of living in big city, said London Mayor Sadiq Khan last year.
"You have to be kidding me?!" Response to Khan by Donald Trump Jr. yesterday. 


Trump Jr. is being criticized for insensitivity because he juxtapositions a response to Khan a year later, after the London attack yesterday. Meanwhile, back in yesteryear, Khan's remark was made after the bombing incident in NYC and elsewhere in the USA, which injured 26 people. Liberals are more upset by Jr's statement than the terrorist attacks. I suppose it's better to be politically correct than safe.

33 comments:

Dave said...

I know this isn't politically correct, but it's quite clear from looking at Europe and all of the terrorist attacks that have happened there over the past few years, that if you invite refugees from the Middle East into your country, be prepared for terrorist attacks.

They're part and parcel with each other.

The hysteria surrounding Trumps NINETY-DAY ban that effects exactly seven countries, ones on which the Obama administration already placed travel limits as “countries of concern” is simply part of Pelosi and Shumer's "resistance" against anything President Trump wants to do.

Monkey Momma said...

The attacker was British born.

michael molovinsky said...

dave@7:25, the countries associated with the ban are in a state of anarchy, and totally incapable of vetting their citizens

momma@7:30, it appears that they didn't even want to make his identity known, until they could mitigate the reality of radical Islamic terror, whether homegrown or imported. i suppose it's better to have a policeman beheaded in the streets of london, than allow trump to address parliament.

doug_b said...

There was a time you could just get on a plane. There weren't cameras everywhere. The cost of all this supposed security (like the TSA), and all the extra police costs us 100's of billions of dollars annually. All this because of some failed countries with 11th century beliefs.

Bob said...

Mike, if you or anyone else know of deficiencies in the US immigrant/visa application process allowing dangerous individuals to enter the US and kill Americans, then maybe the ban has some merit.

Can you demonstrate that immigrants and visitors from the seven banned countries are more likely to perpetrate a mass killing than a native-born American?

Absent the above, I'd like to hear what you're concerned about.

Monkey Momma said...

"i suppose it's better to have a policeman beheaded in the streets of london, than allow trump to address parliament."

What a ridiculous and offensive statement. If you're going for the shock factor, congratulations on your success. If you're going for common sense or education, I'd consider this an epic fail.

Upon re-reading your post, it is clear your disdain for "liberals" overshadows any feelings of concern you may have for the victims and their families in this latest senseless tragedy. You can and should do better than this, Mr. Molovinsky.

doug_b said...

"if you or anyone else know of deficiencies in the US immigrant/visa application process allowing dangerous individuals to enter the US and kill Americans"

You mean like 9/11? You mean like the man & wife in California that killed all those people at a school district meeting, you mean like the Boston Marathon bombing?

"Can you demonstrate that immigrants and visitors from the seven banned countries are more likely to perpetrate a mass killing than a native-born American? "

Well before 9/11 on could board a plane or train without a thought. Americans were not engaged in terrorist activities. Yes, there was a nut or two, but there weren't people who actually made it their business to build shoe bombs. These failed countries harbor the terrorists that plot such crimes. Why should we take a chance? We have nothing to gain.

Bob said...

9/11 - This happened sixteen years ago, and screening/entry rules have been tightened substantially since then, especially for applicants from countries that harbor terrorists. We have a huge government apparatus, the Department of Homeland Security, spending billions per year to figure out who is dangerous. They must be doing something right considering the paucity of successful attacks since 9/11. During eight years as president, Bush never felt the need for a ban, in fact he went out of his way to emphasize that America is not at war with Islam but with individual extremists who pervert the faith. Lastly, the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia is not part of Trump's travel ban.

San Bernardino - The husband was born in Chicago. The wife was born in Pakistan, and lived most of her life in Saudi Arabia before coming to the US. Pakistan and Saudia Arabia are not part of the ban.

Boston Marathon - Both perps from the former USSR, which is not part of the ban.

So the examples you cite, Doug, do not support Trump's travel ban. Challenged in court, the Trump administration failed to provide any evidence for why allowing travel from the seven (now six) countries presented an imminent danger to Americans.

As best as I can tell, the rationale for the ban is that some of Trump's base are afraid of Muslims. I'm still waiting to hear what, if any, new intel exists in support of banning travel from the six named countries.

michael molovinsky said...

momma@2:20, overshadows any feelings of concern you may have for the victims and their families in this latest senseless tragedy. i have been documenting the slaughter of innocents in iraq, syria, egypt, libya and europe for years on this blog. you apparently choose to see each incident as isolated. i think differently. no less than 50,000 radical Islamists (just the number of ISIS members alone) find this latest attack neither senseless or tragic.


Jamie Kelton said...

Mr Molovinski

It's quite simple really.

" Islam in a man is as dangerous as rabies in a dog "
-- Winston Churchill

Bob said...

Jamie Kelton's amplification of Churchill's bigoted comment says more about Jamie Kelton than it does about Islam.

More enlightened leaders from this century such as George W Bush would tell you that the overwhelming majority of the world's 1.7 billion Muslims live in peace and are guided by their faith towards peace and kind acts. Ascribing the crimes of a few crackpots to 1.7 billion people is pretty much the textbook definition of bigotry.

doug_b said...

"Ascribing the crimes of a few crackpots "

ISIS - 50,000 strong.

Bob said...

Really, Doug, you have intelligence that 50,000 members of ISIS halfway around the world are actively plotting attacks in the US? And somehow this was missed by our Department of Homeland Security?

I'm also still waiting to hear what knowledge you have that supports banning people from the six countries, now that you've learned that none of the incidents you cited were committed by people from the list of banned countries.

ironpigpen said...

It seems as if a few here are more than happy to not learn from history and, instead, recklessly gamble with American lives all in the name of extremely misguided "political correctness". I'm just grateful that Barack Hussein Obama is not delivering any 'great' apology speeches in Cairo or telling Israel it must go back to pre-1967 borders anymore. I'm also grateful that crooked Hillary Rodham Clinton did not win the November election (in spite of endless Lame Stream Media predictions to the contrary) and, therefore, is not trying to blame the London attack on a You Tube video, at least NOT as the President of the United States, that is. Most of all, I am infinitely grateful that the United States finally DOES have a President who is unafraid to call a spade a spade no matter how many Liberals' feelings get hurt in the process, a President who can and will put the security of America and American citizens FIRST before everything else, including political correctness, no matter what kind of concentrated and focused hatred the Lame Stream Media and cry-baby, sore-loser Liberals chuck at him all day long, day in and day out.

ROLF OELER

Scott Armstrong said...

Yeah, lets wait until someone from one of the 7 named terrorist states immigrates to this country and commits an act of Jihad that kills scores of people. Disregard the fact that ISIS in Syria has the ability to manufacture passports that are authentic and that they have stated many times they plan to use immigration as a way to bring Jihad to America. Hey! No worries there! And Somalia,there's a country that can really provide sound information on those seeking immigrant status here in the good ol USA.I'm sure that Somalian immigrant didn't means to run over those students at Ohio State and stab that person after the car came a stop. And don't worry about all the Somalia immigrants and/or their children that have traveled to Syria for some fun in the sun with ISIS before returning home. I guess that just like spring break right? Good lord I could go on but really, what's the point. Those who think they are smarter/better than us/elites won't listen to us xenophobes.
By the way, 2nd and 3rd generation Jihad is a rising a rising phenomenon here and in Europe. This demonstrates a failure to assimilate.Of course our betters now instruct us that assimilation is bad. Those who immigrate into the west our told by our betters/government elites not to worry about assimilation, in fact they should celebrate their own culture. This makes them/us? all feel so "multi-cultural". Gosh, isn't that wonderful, we can feel so virtuous celebrating globalism in the new fashionable non judgement way?

Bob said...

Rolf Oeler offers an impressive word salad, but no specific reasons why we should ban people from the six countries.

Bob said...

Picking through Scott Armstrong's sarcasm for logic was a struggle, but I tried and came up with the following:

1) One crackpot from the banned list of countries slipped through the existing safety net, and committed a failed attack resulting in no fatalities, which justifies the ban of everyone from seven (now six) countries. Following this logic, I'd be curious as to whether Scott believes we should amend the constitution and deport gun owners, because the overwhelming percentage of mass shootings in this country are committed by gun owners, and people killed in the US by mass shootings outnumber people killed by Somalian immigrants probably by a factor of 6000 to 1.

2) I am a liberal who is more concerned with political correctness than with sound policy. In fact I voted for every Republican presidential candidate until Trump.

3) My belief that a few anecdotes about people who are different from me do not define all people who are different from me makes me blind to a clear and present danger to America.

The item about ISIS manufacturing legitimate US passports makes me interested in more information. How could someone with a manufactured "authentic" passport get through customs, since real passports are tied to database records and I doubt ISIS have access to that database? Moreover, the Trump administration had the opportunity in court to argue that allowing visitors from the banned countries would create danger for Americans. They didn't just fail in court, they failed to even make the argument!

If the administration made a sober presentation of the rationale for the ban, stating that new intelligence and new enemy capabilities made it a necessary evil, I'd probably support it. I am for policy that makes me and my loved ones safer. Until then, I don't see the justification.

Scott Armstrong said...

Yawn....really...? Is that your response? Bob, Mike does not like his site entertaining personal exchanges. I prefer to abide by the rules but since you named me let me name you.That said, let me now write that there is nothing "anecdotal" about the fact that thousands of people in the west have been killed by Islamic terrorists and many thousands more wounded.It is mere common sense to tightly screen immigration from any country that sponsors, is torn asunder by conflicts involving Islamic radicalism, or cannot provide adequate and sure information on their own people.
But please, keep telling everyone there is no cause for alarm, no reason to worry. If we love them, they will love us back right? Let's trust everything will work out.
Gosh....if that were only so....

Only those completely ignorant of history could coddle such foolish thoughts.The first duty of any nation is to protect its population.Hoping for the best and counting of mutual goodwill is the stuff of children's tales.

JoshLCowen said...

In the 1960s we 'willy nilly' stopped immigration from European nations for the sole reason of bring Hispanics in from Central and South America. Guaranteed future Democrats. Success for Teddy Kennedy et al. That said, why shouldn't be able to halt immigration from hell holes with no governing structure...or one openly hostile the us?

TRENT HALL said...

We never "stopped" immigration from any country save for the 1920's era discrimination laws against Chinese & Jews/Italians from Europe, and then again during WW1 & WW2 years.

Hispanics starting coming in the 1960's legally & illegally because government agriculture policy & subsidizes made it profitable for big Ag to merge & consolidate and the growth of large national food retail chains meant the distribution & profits from produce sales created demand for ever more production. That meant workers were required to plant/harvest/pick/& pack produce. Likewise, meat slaughtering/packing became national in scope. Basically only Hispanic & immigrant workers will do this work and Big Business sees to it that bought/paid via "campaign contributions" congressional reps ensure that no effective penalties are imposed on employers.....only the hapless workers face fines/jail/deportation if caught.

As for the rest of the Trump snowflakes......are you getting bored yet, as Trump promised, from all your so much WINNING!

Bob said...

Thank you for your reply Scott. You write:

"It is mere common sense to tightly screen immigration from any country that sponsors..."

Agree 100% and we already do. Listening to Trump and to you, one might think that people from the six banned countries could simply get on a plane and fly here. The reality is that they are required to obtain a visa first and must be screened by DHS. It takes two years of vetting for Syrian refugees to obtain entry. One might even argue that we have extreme vetting already. Supporting that argument is the fact that there hasn't been a single fatality under the current vetting policy.

I notice in your reply that you did not point to any example of a Syrian refugee committing a terrorist attack in the US, despite our accepting tens of thousands. I see you did not comment on whether all gun owners should be deported, since people killed in the US by mass shootings outnumber people killed by Somalian immigrants by a factor of more than 6000 to 1.

"But please, keep telling everyone there is no cause for alarm, no reason to worry..."

What I said is that policy should be based on sound logic and facts and data, rather than anecdotes. And that a ban with rational justification behind it is one that I would support. If our intelligence community, our current military leaders, and a huge bipartisan group of former military/intelligence people all say there's no justification for a ban, I'm inclined to believe them, as they are not a group known for political correctness. I'll be alarmed when the intelligence apparatus on which we spend billions concludes that there's real cause for alarm, rather than being driven by your apparent fear of some trash-talking losers who are very very far away.

Scott Armstrong said...

The fact is we can't tightly screen immigrants from countries that cannot provide adequate information on their own residents. That is the reason for the suspension! We cannot trust the passports/identities from any number of countries because ISIS can print authentic passports.
That is the cause for worry you and the rest of the anti-Trump movement want to dismiss as not important. To prove your motives are suspect I will point out you didn't object when Barry did it with Iraqi immigrants. This is all about opposing Trump merely to oppose him. Putting a priority on hate over national security. Rather selfish don't you think?

ironpigpen said...

Bob offers nothing impressive at all, just a bunch of Liberal blah blah blah and the usual truckload of Trump hate. Bob probably does not understand these kind of "broken record" tactics are a big part of why crooked Hillary Rodham Clinton did NOT win the November election despite having the Lame Stream Media in the tank the whole time. I suspect it is going to be an incredibly long four years for Bob and the rest of his sanctimonious Liberal ilk.

doug_b said...

I argued with Bob - but maybe I should agree with him. Why ban immigration from those 6 countries? - when we should ban immigration from the whole lot of Muslim countries.

If we want to help these people, we need to bring free market principles and capitalism. They should stay in their own countries, modernize, and come into the 21st century.

There are good ideas, and bad ideas. Islam - a combination of a religion / legal system / political system / economic system / social system - is a bad idea. They can keep the religion part, but scrap the rest.

Churchill was correct: "Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. "

LVCI said...

"ISIS can print authentic passports"
As explained prior they will not work. Each are bar coded in addition to facial recognition software which are scanned upon arrival.

"can't tightly screen immigrants from countries that cannot provide adequate information on their own residents"
Again as explained--these people spend years in refuge camps waiting for the UN to recommend them for already enhanced screening application to the U.S. They receive dozens of interviews which 4 federal agencies then have to approve. Process takes at least 18 months.

This can't be compared to Europe where the land masses make it possible to walk in. We lie two oceans away from those continents. They've been forced to take in millions. We only allowed 17,000 a year before Trump. Relax I think you'll be safe. They've undergone a lot more scrutiny then your neighbor. I'd be more worried abut them.

"opposing Trump merely to oppose him. Putting a priority on hate over national security".
Like a so-called liberal wouldn't want the same thing. What a line of BS. I'm positive I speak for many others who don't "HATE" the guy. Just his dumb ideas.

MIRROR CHECK: Unfairly labeling other people who disagree with someone else's view in itself is bordering on the same accusations being lobbed at others.

I understand I'm wasting my time. What I don't understand is why I continue to respond. Not a single person (since I started blogging 9 years ago) has ever changed their views. I wouldn't expect anyone to start now. Other then for two others it looks like you guys found a home. to talk amongst yourselves. Carry on.

Scott Armstrong said...

ISIS has all the equipment necessary to print authentic passports, all the equipment. They can make them match facial recognition. They can fabricate identities, they can do it all. They captured all the equipment necessary from the Syrian Government. They got the whole works. Other governments on the list might well be inclined to facilitate the immigration of terrorists into the United States.

The point of dialogue isn't to change the view of other advocates but to provide informed view points to those interested in seeking differing opinions.

LVCI said...

"They can make them match facial recognition"
Really? They can outsmart and match in person what Homeland Security and American intelligence has in their database/? You got to be kidding ! This is delusional.

"The point of dialogue isn't to change the view of other advocates but to provide informed view points>"
Informed?

(My last response)

Scott Armstrong said...

"Last month ABC News reported that U.S. intelligence suspected ISIS had acquired thousands of blank Syrian passports and at least one passport printing machine after taking over government offices in Syria. Officials from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) said in a 17-page report that the terror group has likely been able to print legitimate-looking Syrian passports since at least last summer – and raised the possibility that people using the forged documents have snuck into America. "

Anyone can search this topic and see the truth.What good is facial recognition when the enemy can fake everything? They have everything they need to do it. Yes America has a data base but , from another news story"“They then make their way back to Europe posing as migrants with new identities, making it virtually impossible for security officials to detect potential terrorists among those fleeing persecution."So all they need to do is find a fresh face and give him a new real/authentic identity. That fresh face would of course not be on any list list of suspected terrorists,

Add to this that countries on the list may have elements within leadership that would use airports to get terrorists into the country by providing them with documents that are authentic and would pass muster by any and all processes our customs people would employee. If we don't know the chap then all the fancy gadgets don't matter.

Finally, we agree, it is important to provide "informed" opinion. I can source what I write and welcome readers here to look into themselves if they have any questions. Other chose question marks as sources.

LVCI said...

"I can source what I write... Other chose question marks as sources."

U.S. State Department Of State
"A biometric or biometric identifier is an objective measurement of a physical characteristic of an individual which, when captured in a database, can be used to verify the identity or check against other entries in the database. The best known biometric is the fingerprint, but others include facial recognition and iris scans.."

Like I said these guys can print all they want but they don't have access to the database. Unless they have a face transplant (including their eyeballs) and ten fingers replaced what's on the passport has to match what's stored in our database.

LVCI said...

Homeland Security
Office of Biometric Identity Management Identification Services
Last Published Date: February 10, 2016


"Biometrics collected by OBIM and linked to specific biographic information enable a person's identity to be established, then verified, by the U.S. government. With each encounter, from applying for a visa to seeking immigration benefits to entering the United States, OBIM:
•Checks a person’s biometrics against a watch list of known or suspected terrorists, criminals and immigration violators
•Checks against the entire database of all of the fingerprints the Department of Homeland Security has collected since OBIM began to determine if a person is using an alias and attempting to use fraudulent identification.
•Checks a person’s biometrics against those associated with the identification document presented to ensure that the document belongs to the person presenting it and not someone else."

Scott Armstrong said...

"•Checks a person’s biometrics against a watch list of known or suspected terrorists, criminals and immigration violators"

Seems to be a fly in the soup with this. What good is biometrics when the data base consists of "known or suspected terrorists"? What if the Jihadist isn't in the database? Jihadist/Muslim extremists start the training from birth so fresh, young,unknown recruits will be at the ready to receive the clean identifies and the foolproof paperwork.
Then there are the countries, fully engulfed in Wahhabism, or controlled by Muslim extremists embedded in the corrupted governments who would supply clean passports to people not "known" or "suspected" by our dear Homeland Security and therefore not on the database, leaving them free to enter the country to kill people/us.

By the way, is there a federal agency with less credibility these days than Homeland Security? What was at one time a good idea has been thoroughly bureaucratized and politicized to the point of uselessness.

LVCI said...

Ok I get it their smarter then us. Our government sucks--it's corrupt-- they win. I got it. Resistance is futile. Ban every damn one of them. I should have known I'm wasting my time with this blog. I'm outta and done with it!

Scott Armstrong said...

LVCI,

I really enjoyed the back and forth we had.You're good! I get a kick out of this, I paint houses all day and need something to keep my brain active. Politics is a passion of mine and I enjoy discussing it. I never take it personally unless it gets personal. We never went there. You have a great blog and real insights. Hope you will continue to post here. If everyone agrees it's a boring world.