Feb 8, 2017

Trump's Muslim Ban

The thing about Trump's Muslim Ban is that it is not a ban on Muslims, it's a travel ban against countries which for the most part are in a state of anarchy or hostility, and not capable of vetting their own citizens in regard to our security.  How safe do you feel about the current governments of Libya, Somalia or Yemen, checking passengers on their end of a flight?

My readers of liberal persuasion are probably beginning to doubt my claim of being a non-partisan.  The fact is I am bewildered by the misinformation and distortion concerning the Trump administration.  Now, I get that Trump has repulsed you numerous times in the last six months.  You are certainly entitled to your dislike and distrust of him,  but the distortions benefit nobody.

killing Christians on the beach in Libya


Scott Armstrong said...


Poorly vetted/non vetted immigrants from these countries have already inflicted harm on Americans. If any of those who come into the country now because of the Democrats caterwauling and legal shenanigans do more harm it will be on them.

Dave said...

Posting this photo will cause your Progressive Democratic friends to say you have Islamaphobia. They suffer both from Trump Derangement Syndrome as well as Sticking their head in the Sand Syndrome.

Bernie O'Hare said...

You have listed none of these supposed distortions by the media concerning the travel ban, and use a photograph to prey on people's fear, just like our so-called President. That is what I would call distortion. And it's nonsense. You note that Muslim extremists are persecuting Christians, which they are,and then incredibly seem to think there's nothing wrong with preventing these persecuted Christians from fleeing this terrorism. This isolationist view is precisely what enabled the extermination of Jews before the onset of WWII.

Your claim to be nonpartisan is complete horseshit as you have been singing in the Trump choir for some time. The simple reality is that Trump issued a travel ban that was not specifically aimed at Muslims, but certainly had that impact. It was so poorly vetted that it prevented legal permanent residents of the US from entering this country. I hate to break it to you, but legal permanent residents have constitutional rights, including the right of due process. This ban directly impacted families in Allentown. That was clearly illegal, and you are attempting to justify it.

If Trump wanted to temporarily suspend the processing of refugees, I could understand that, but the order was drafted illegally. When a judge quite properly took him to task, he became a so-called judge.

Our so-called president has immense power when it comes to immigration. But he has no authority to bar people who are legally entitled to be here.

michael molovinsky said...

bernie@9:10, i would appreciate it if you could restrain yourself from using the jew card once again. you also did it last time, when i criticized obama for not vetoing the resolution against israeli interests in jerusalem. the travel ban has been widely misinterpreted to be a ban on Muslims. that's why hundreds of people protested at airports with signs expressing support for Muslims. to call a travel ban against seven countries, when there are dozens of Muslim countries, a ban on Muslims is a distortion. if you believe that the governments of libya and yemen are capable of implementing proper security, you are deluded.

trump's comment about the "so called judge" was just another of trump's inappropriate statements. and i also agree that his order was poorly implemented. btw, to my knowledge the family coming to allentown were refugees, not legal permanent residents.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I don't really care what you do or do not appreciate. History is history. Our isolation is attitude is precisely why many Jews were exterminated. I can't help it that this truth is uncomfortable for you, as it should be. Now you support a ban which will result in the extermination of many Christians, as well as Muslims. Open your eyes.

Monkey Momma said...

If it's not a ban on Muslims, then why did Candidate Trump refer to a "Muslim Ban" so often? HIs words on trail, and as president, are now being used against him in one of the most interesting legal battles I've ever seen. These words aren't distortions - he said, quite directly, that he would ban Muslims from coming into America, which is unconstitutional and therefore against the law. Intent matters. We shall see what the courts say, but anyone who actually listened to Trump on the campaign trail knows that this is a ban on a specific religion. Furthermore, the ban does not include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan - all of which are harbor far more demonstrably dangerous potential terrorists than any of the countries in the Muslim ban.

Steven Ramos said...

The question of why not Egypt and Saudi should be asked of Obama, Clinton, and Kerry. From what has been reported of the million or so migrants to Europe last year very few were Christian. Obama did nothing to help the Christians in Syria or Egypt and as a matter of fact Syrian Christians were asking Obama to leave Assad alone and target ISIS and other radical elements and in Egypt he supported a terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, which almost immediately began to persecute Christians and women.

michael molovinsky said...

bernie@10:04, the christians have been executed during the last seven years under obama. you choose to blame trump, who has been president for two weeks, and a four old day ban, for their predicament

momma@10:08, i suspect that security, especially at the airports, in the four countries you mention, is better than in the 7 included in the ban.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Excuse me, but I condemned Obama just as much for his misguided foreign policy. But Obama did not bar legal permanent residents. Trump did. Obama did not state he would ban Muslims. Trump did. Obama never indefinitely suspended Syrian refugees, the very people being beheaded by ISIS for their religious beliefs. Trump did. And the ban was enacted January 27, more than four days ago. You can't even get that fact right, and speak of distortions.

Steven Ramos said...

January 27, 2017 travel ban starts.
January 29, 2017 U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly imposes partial block
February 3, 2017 U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton allows partial block to expire
February 3, 2017 U.S. District Judge James Robart halts ban
February 4, 2017 DHS halts ban

LVCI said...

We need to clarify what Trump did and Obama didn't regarding this immigration issue. This multination list s was a Republican led Congress initiative. Not Obama's as Spicer and Trump claim

Washington Post-- "In 2014, then-Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.) proposed a law to tighten the rules for people from those countries if they had visited Syria or Iraq or were dual citizens of those countries. The House passed the bill 407 to 19." Obama then signed. it Trump did no such thing. He bypassed congress completely.

Secondly it was not a "BAN". It called for greater vetting which is what we have done. Everyone agrees it is a 18-24 month process once vetting begins. Five intelligence agencies have to sign off as well Sometimes it takes years before screeners from the UN even recommend someone(s) for the U.S. vetting process.

Indeed the president has the power to block people who pose an "immanent" threat. Since there's no history of one of these heavily screened applicants creating a terrorist incident the word "immanent" shouldn't justify what he signed.

If the court rulings don't go Trump's way doesn't mean illegals can flood in. That's Trump BS. It would only mean the prior vetting process would be allowed to continue unless or until congress passes further restrictive legislation. That's as it should be for a nation not ruled by a king.

Scott Armstrong said...

Please by all means continue to rail against a temporary travel banned from countries that are known to harbor terrorists and have real vetting problems of their own. Yes go ahead,make Trump hating partisan fools of yourselves.

LVCI said...

"Yes go ahead, make Trump hating partisan fools of yourselves."
Somehow you always manage to turn anyone who doesn't agree as someone full of hate and partisanship. That may be your world but it ain't mine. Sorry but if I don't agree with Trump's actions I'm not going to roll over, shut up and die. Lord knows after the last eight years when the shoe was on the other foot we heard plenty from you when you didn't agree. There's been a lot of name calling but I wasn't one of them as you will observe in my last comment. Never once in all these years have I called you a fool. I think others like myself don't deserve to be called such simply because we don't agree. You labeling others make you no better then those you accuse when you do this.

No go ahead I know you always like to have the last word.

Bernie O'Hare said...

It is NOT a temporary travel ban. With respect to Syrian refugees, it is an INDEFINITE travel ban. Also, the constitution does apply to legal permanent residents and even those with other visa statuses. Trump does not get to turn the constitution on and off as it suits him. The courts should never defer to the So-called president when it comes to the constitution. It was a poorly drafted order and even now there is uncertainty how far it applies. This has nothing to do with being partisan. This has everything to do with the Constitution. First, a Jew accuses me of playing the Jew card. Now a partisan accuses me of being partisan. The reality is that Trump prepared an EO that is illegal. He failed to run it by people who might have crafted something that would pass muster. Blame him, not partisans.

doug_b said...

Myself, I'd like to see a moratorium on all immigration to the US. For some very logical reasons that are never stated. Voicing any of these concerns and observations, the left uses ad hominen attacks with name calling such as racist / xenophobe / islamophobe / it is their way to discredit thought they do not like.

One of Trump's slogans is "Put America First".

I'm in Minneapolis, where we have 50,000 Somali's. No kidding - that's 50,000.

Today I went to the hospital for a CAT scan. One cannot help see how many Somali people are there. Most were elderly, past retirement age. I have questions: How to we let elderly foreigners into our country, when they can never have a productive job? Then also the hospital had to get an interpreter. One thing is for sure - they all have iPhones, and seem to on them constantly.

I pay $4,500 for health insurance (thru employer) plus I pay a $2,500 deductible. Today the CAT scan was $600 + dr visit $180 = $780 I paid. Where is "Put America First" - I guess us working stiffs just have to pay and pay and pay.

When the US is $20 trillion in debt, and the debt is growing by $1.5 trillion a year - how the hell can we 'welcome' more and more immigrants, and pick up their tab? It makes absolutely no logical sense.

doug_b said...

For those who say it's an Illegal Executive Order or 'we don't need a king'.

Can I remind you that our last POTUS ran the country on EO's and his pen and his phone.

Steven Ramos said...

LVCI just calls us unreasonable. :)

History: Our argument with Obama's EO's were when he went beyond the law (DACA), or abused a law (management of national parks - ammunition ban), or refused to enforce a law (voter intimidation by the New Black Panther's in Philly or the border). Our complaint against congress and especially democrats is that they were not jealous of their power and allowed Obama to subvert them by taking power not delegated to him. While I was not a fan of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd he was jealous for the power of the senate. Sad that many Democratics are not jealous and allowed the executive, Obama, to use his pen and his phone to make law.

Current: President's, including DJT, have the power to secure and control our borders, air space, coasts, and the, liberal special, interior to declare national parks. All of his actions can be dealt with by the people's representatives and senators. They can override him and override his veto. The king in this scenario is the judge or panel of judges that think their policy preference is more valid then the executive or the people through their legislature. When DJT goes beyond the law we should stand together to override him. On this issue he is fully within his power.

8 U.S. Code § 1187 - Visa waiver program for certain visitors

DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program


TRENT HALL said...

Well Dougie, you are about to pay more for your healthcare, since repealing ObamaCare with Republican "replacements" (i.e., less funding/coverage) means your hospital & current health carrier will have to increase their charges to you, in order to make up for the subsidies/funding that will be lost to them. But, I'm sure that's okay with you, since at least the black Somalis won't get anything, and with their children not being able to get vaccinated, your grandchildren in school can get sick. But, that's okay too, I guess, because after all, mandatory vaccination is all just a Democratic/Socialistic conspiracy plot against Jesus.

MM, the irony is that none of the terrorist attacks (save for the 9-11 Saudis) have been committed by illegals or immigrants. They have been either by white Christian Supremacists or Muslim native home born. "Extreme" vetting is simply Trump BS; there is only one kind of vetting...that conducted by the agencies LCVI mentioned above. In reality, it simply consists of shuffling papers provided by the host country & various church & sponsor organizations back and forth among themselves. The so called "follow ups" that were conducted by US police/FBI even here about home grown suspects always resulted in passes. So much for what vetting accomplishes. Trump's ban simply delays or permanently prevents refugees & immigrants from arriving, to the detriment of businesses & hospitals and other sectors of the economy that need them.

Dave said...

Told you so earlier today Mike. Progressives are like Pavlov's dog .... ring the bell and they re flexibly react..

Dave said...

@3:43. We have no idea what President Trump will propose. An example of TDS in full bloom

Scott Armstrong said...


Just for laughs I did a google search of your claim and voila I discovered plenty of carefully crafted articles supporting the specious claim that no immigrants from these countries have harmed Americans. The writers, very clever,act in a similar fashion as defense attorneys and use language to create a plausible scenarios/excuses/distractions... to support their point of view.
Unfortunately America is not a courtroom where only 12 sequestered dupes need to be won over. That is your problem, that is how Trump won. Until you make the adjustment that the majority of the population is no longer buying the lies of the Left/media you will continue to lose. But please, for the sake of America, continue down your merry path of the big lie to political oblivion. You're more than half way there already.

TRENT HALL said...

Scott, what part of gerrymandering & rural over representation don't you get? The last two Republican Presidents LOST the popular vote; and Trump by 3 million. There is no "majority of the population" in your camp. And your base....rural, white, aged is a shrinking portion of the population. Younger voters......the future.....are totally opposed to the social & political ideas you espouse. Yes, voter suppression tactics can and have depressed the city & other segments of the population, but, the arc of demographics is inevitable. Even in November, a mere 80,000 votes in three states would have resulted in an electoral tally over 300 for Clinton, with a 3 million plus popular vote. The country is divided very sharply, not mostly buying what you are trying to sell.

Trump is at his high water mark.....from here on the sh-t show only gets worse as the press, the judiciary, and major business sectors (the Chamber of Commerce type Republicans) along with the educated and the professions become more vocal about the runaway train wreck in the White House. You think he is leading? He is only provoking everyone who is rational. White backlash got him this far; but when everyone, save for the rich, start to realize they are hurting worse than before, no one will be left to say they hear the voices that Trump hears in his head.

Scott Armstrong said...

Tell yourself what ever you need to to feel positive about your situation. Please continue to believe the Democratic Party is on the right track. In fact, don't change a thing!

ironpigpen said...

I thoroughly agree with Mr. Armstrong. I sincerely hope the Democrat Party continue to do ALL the things they have been doing : please keep marching around wearing ridiculous vagina hats, please keep blocking bridges and other transit points to inconvenience countless people who are simply trying to get to and from work, please keep destroying private and public property no matter what the damages cost and please keep physically assaulting people at places like the University of California at Berkeley. Most of all, please keeping playing the tired, worn out Race Card as often as possible because, hey, it worked out so well for the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Barack Hussein Obama, who was supposed to unite this country like it had never been united before, as well as Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom the Lame Stream Media told me for months and months and months to count on as my next President. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, anytime the Democrats can get someone like CNN's Donna Brazile to provide debate questions in advance then that would be great because EVERYTHING can be blamed on the Russians later.