Trump needs some better people around him, people who can talk some sense into him, maybe even prevent him from doing something that not only goes against our own constitution; but will have the opposite affect he intended. The terrorist social media recruiters have just scored big time and will have enough good stuff to add to their ranks for some time to come. He scared me before the election and he hasn't changed my opinion of him, he is a loose cannon and I only hope the people he puts around him can rein him in some. I agree with some of what he intends to do, but putting a complete ban on immigrants from Muslim countries is just stupid. But if you have or do business with the Trump family, you got a free pass, even though a lot of terrorists came from those countries.

But it is a little different from what is being reported, the sky is not falling, and we haven't nuked the middle east.

It will get appropriate pushback and be filtered through the courts and Congress.

More detail and a less sensationalized look:


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria

But it is a little different from what is being reported, the sky is not falling, and we haven't nuked the middle east.

It will get appropriate pushback and be filtered through the courts and Congress.

More detail and a less sensationalized look:


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria

As usual, you're being polite and charitable to those with whom you disagree when you characterize the facts as being only a "little" different than what is being reported. The salient facts are "very" different.

The reports are the typical fake news that Trump accuses the media of. Well, I should be charitable, the fake news promulgated by anti-Trumpers and Democrats that the media reports (as if it were true.)

the ban was just to feed the base their hunk of red meat..

Kelly ann conway statement just shows their willingness to do what ever they want in America.. framing it as a small price to pay .. the same thing happen after 9-11 massive surveillance

“That’s 1 percent,” she pointed out. “And I think in terms of the upside being greater protection of our borders, of our people, it’s a small price to pay.”

Trump’s executive order, which triggered the detention of permanent U.S. legal residents at airports across the country.

Whats the price if your in that 1% what is the term Obama haters like to use Bad Optics... well This is Bad optics for the country World wide and thats not fake news .. the new mantra of the right when anyone is critical of Trump just cry fake news and look away


national review has been called the "bible of American conservatism," has a far right bias. I feel this is more balanced view http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-38790842

the ban was just to feed the base their hunk of red meat..

He promised even more than this in his campaign. He is keeping some of his promise. When he appears not to be keeping a promise, the left likes to point that out, or fabricate the notion that he is not keeping a promise, to imply that he is not to be trusted. He can't even win for losing.

Kelly ann conway statement just shows their willingness to do what ever they want in America.. framing it as a small price to pay .. the same thing happen after 9-11 massive surveillance

“That’s 1 percent,” she pointed out. “And I think in terms of the upside being greater protection of our borders, of our people, it’s a small price to pay.”

Trump’s executive order, which triggered the detention of permanent U.S. legal residents at airports across the country.

It was not part of his executive order to do that.

Whats the price if your in that 1%

Conway pointed out the price: "the upside being greater protection of our borders, of our people,"


what is the term Obama haters like to use Bad Optics...

I thought "Bad Optics" was a term that media likes to use when it criticizes various administrations, usually Republican ones. I guess it's bad if "Obama haters" use it.

well This is Bad optics for the country World wide and thats not fake news ..

Who said it was fake news? And should we determine security policies by what some consider bad optics over actual security. Optics, for the most part, are appearance rather than reality. Security should be based on reality not appearance.

the new mantra of the right when anyone is critical of Trump just cry fake news and look away

That's a weak straw man argument. Trump has been called a purveyor of fake news, as has been social media, or anybody that the main stream media is either in competition with or just wants to discredit. Many on the "right" are critical of Trump and are more likely to call his mouthings as fake than most of those on the "left" are likely to nail Hillary, or Obama, et al. as fakers.

national review has been called the "bible of American conservatism," has a far right bias. I feel this is more balanced view http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-38790842

There you go again, discrediting the presentation of facts because of who states them, not because the report is unfactual or wrong.

So, because someone has called National Review the "bible of American conservatism", anything in it ain't no good? That is pure ignorance. And having a bias does not mean you are wrong. If it does, then everybody is wrong. And the National Review is not "far right." It is often not only "moderate," but often moderately Progressive. Hey, it has been said that the BBC has a leftist bias--some claim "far" left.

The National Review article that John cites is not giving an opinion about Trumps' executive order. It is clearly stating the parameters of the order and challenging anyone to actually read it. But instead of seeing that or responding to it, you ignore it and jump off the deep end of the false hysteria that it comments on.

And nothing in the BBC article you cite disputes the National Review article which you disparage.

There you go again, discrediting the presentation of facts because of who states them, not because the report is unfactual or wrong.

So, because someone has called National Review the "bible of American conservatism", anything in it ain't no good? That is pure ignorance. And having a bias does not mean you are wrong. If it does, then everybody is wrong. And the National Review is not "far right." It is often not only "moderate," but often moderately Progressive. Hey, it has been said that the BBC has a leftist bias--some claim "far" left.

The National Review article that John cites is not giving an opinion about Trumps' executive order. It is clearly stating the parameters of the order and challenging anyone to actually read it. But instead of seeing that or responding to it, you ignore it and jump off the deep end of the false hysteria that it comments on.

And nothing in the BBC article you cite disputes the National Review article which you disparage.

Funny I only showed the source .. and how they lean i didn't not comment on the information contained or dispute what they wrote .. I disparaged nothing I was very clear.. its bad optics and an imaginary threat at best "It was not part of his executive order to do that." his order his responsibility to provide clear direction i guess that didnt happen

It seems your the one actively disparaging those news outlets you dont agree with

The reports are the typical fake news that Trump accuses the media of. Well, I should be charitable, the fake news promulgated by anti-Trumpers and Democrats that the media reports (as if it were true.)

This is totally a chuck of red meat. The order only lasts for 30 days. What happens after that? Do we go back to business as usual , or will be be thrust into Serious military action in Syria and will the ban be extended ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny I only showed the source

You did more than that. You said "the ban was just to feed the base their hunk of red meat.." How, exactly, is one to understand that? Just some unbiased, impartial, non prejudicial aside? "Only" an objective statement of what the ban was "just" about?


.. and how they lean i didn't not comment on the information contained or dispute what they wrote .. I disparaged nothing I was very clear.. its bad optics and an imaginary threat at best

If that was "only" what" you did, why bother even posting it? Was it "only" some offhand, irrelevant aside letting us know that you think the National Review has a far right bias? If you did not wish to dispute or disparage what it's author wrote, what was the point of telling us what you judge to be its bias? Your assertion that you did not comment on the information contained is obviously false on its face. Your post implied that the article, therefore its content, was tainted by bias. Or else why point out (comment) that you think the National Review is biased?

That you didn't dispute what the article said is kind of typical of how you respond to content of various posts--you don't. You often comment on the messenger rather than the message.

I disparaged nothing I was very clear.. its bad optics and an imaginary threat at best

You disparaged the ban (I take it you mean the ban here not the article--it is often hard to follow the sequence and attributions in your pastiche style of writing) by calling it bad optics and (the danger of importing large numbers of refugees from certain areas--not the ban itself?) an imaginary threat at best.

You seem to prefer some perceived "balance" in the BBC article to a perceived lack of it in the National Review article. I didn't find much balance in the BBC's offering, and I don't think the National Review's required balance since it was pointing out misperceptions about the ban. There is no "balance" between what is in the ban and what isn't.

Nor do I find much, if any, "balance" in your post. It seems rather one-sided to me.

"It was not part of his executive order to do that." his order his responsibility to provide clear direction i guess that didnt happen

Clear direction was provided as the National Review article noted: "However, there are reports that the ban is being applied even to green-card holders. This is madness. The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication." The Administration DID intervene to correct the misapplication. Just as in the Constitution, clear direction is provided to the Federal Government, but Courts "interpret" it incorrectly. You don't seem to mind when the Courts do that, you even think it's just a matter of opinion and OK when you like the outcome of judicial "misapplication" and it's fine for it to become the law of the land.

It seems your the one actively disparaging those news outlets you dont agree with

You mean like when I applied the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" adage in comparing your disparaging the National Review"s article because of what some think of its bias to what one might think of the BBC's article because of what some might think of its bias? Yeah, I did that.

The reports are the typical fake news that Trump accuses the media of. Well, I should be charitable, the fake news promulgated by anti-Trumpers and Democrats that the media reports (as if it were true.)

Thanks for repeating what I said. I agree with it.

the snowflakes are having a rough first 100 days :)

the snowflakes are having a rough first 100 days :)

They loved it when the President and Congress and the Court ran roughshod over the Constitution so long as their guys were in power. They were warned that if Federal powers were not cut back to Constitutional limitations, there could be a time when those they detested would have control. That time has arrived. So now it's their turn to squirm over and about "unconstitutional orders". . . and to punctuate that with diatribes against "Nazis" and "dictators" . . . violence and mayhem against the "bigots" . . . shouting down the free speech of the "fascists" at university lectures and conservative rallies. It's a fascinating yet predicted reaction.

the new mantra of the right when anyone is critical of Trump just cry fake news and look away


national review has been called the "bible of American conservatism," has a far right bias. I feel this is more balanced view http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-38790842

no where over the last couple of years will you find more critical analysis and down right rejection of Trump and Trumpism on a daily basis than the National Review....

They loved it when the President and Congress and the Court ran roughshod over the Constitution so long as their guys were in power. They were warned that if Federal powers were not cut back to Constitutional limitations, there could be a time when those they detested would have control. That time has arrived. So now it's their turn to squirm over and about "unconstitutional orders". . . and to punctuate that with diatribes against "Nazis" and "dictators" . . . violence and mayhem against the "bigots" . . . shouting down the free speech of the "fascists" at university lectures and conservative rallies. It's a fascinating yet predicted reaction.

wait till Congress rams some legislation through that they don't care for in similar fashion to the deceitful way Obamacare was born.....

the snowflakes are having a rough first 100 days :)

I heard there's a 60 day waitlist to adopt a puppy and Crayola stock is through the roof.

He promised even more than this in his campaign. He is keeping some of his promise. When he appears not to be keeping a promise, the left likes to point that out, or fabricate the notion that he is not keeping a promise, to imply that he is not to be trusted. He can't even win for losing.

He kept his promise to his base As I pointed out (red meat) This promise was opposed all thru the election .. what he promised was un American the way i see it

America is no safer today with his order in place then it was on Jan 1st its only safer in the minds of Some Americans .. who allow fear and alternative facts to form their conclusions , my post are bias no more than your own.. like you I only bring a different view to the table .. I have no illusions. I will not change anyone thinking here ..

Trump “Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning, from his exec order.. he needed a exec order for a 109 people... I feel safer all ready

He has betrayed our ideals, America does not treat human beings with such utter contempt, we’ve never had such an indifference to others’ welfare and never inflicted such needless pain and suffering. Why are the Saudi’s or UAE excluded? Trump does not have a shred of empathy or compassion. He has only an insecure ego, quick to be insulted and to insult.

I get the whole "they will use this as a recruiting tool", but how do we stop that? Are we supposed to give ISIS everything they want, to deny them recruiting propaganda?

I have no doubt they will use this to recruit. I am sure they used the killing of Bin Laden as a recruiting tool, but I didn't hear anyone complain about that.

We don't win this war by appeasing the jihadists. I know that much.

He has betrayed our ideals, America does not treat human beings with such utter contempt, we’ve never had such an indifference to others’ welfare and never inflicted such needless pain and suffering. Why are the Saudi’s or UAE excluded? Trump does not have a shred of empathy or compassion. He has only an insecure ego, quick to be insulted and to insult.

Paul S, WDMSO...

Obama banned refugees from war-torn Iraq for 6 months, no one on the left went berserk about what he was doing. Bill Clinton banned immigration from war-torn Sierra Leone, no one went berserk about what he was doing.

A temporary ban, until we can figure out how to do it safely. Seems very, very consistent with the oath he just took. I don't like the ban, I especially don't like the religious litmus test. But if it was OK when Obama and Bill Clinton did it, I can only think of reason for the uproar over Trump doing the same thing.

WDMSO: "the ban was just to feed the base their hunk of red meat..
"

So what was it, when Obama and Bill Clinton did it?

He has betrayed our ideals,

:rotf2:

So what was it, when Obama and Bill Clinton did it?

brilliant strategy

no where over the last couple of years will you find more critical analysis and down right rejection of Trump and Trumpism on a daily basis than the National Review....

That is absolutely, 100% accurate. The NR has been brutal to Trump, non-stop criticism through the entire campaign, they pulled no punches.

He has betrayed our ideals, America does not treat human beings with such utter contempt, we’ve never had such an indifference to others’ welfare and never inflicted such needless pain and suffering. Why are the Saudi’s or UAE excluded? Trump does not have a shred of empathy or compassion. He has only an insecure ego, quick to be insulted and to insult.

"He has betrayed our ideals"

Then so did Obama and Bill Clinton, who did the same thing.

"America does not treat human beings with such utter contempt"

So when Obama bombs Muslims with drones, you are OK with that. But it violates our ideals, to ensure that immigrants are vetted.

"we’ve never had such an indifference to others’ welfare "

I believe Obama was in charge when he chose to do absolutely nothing after Assad gassed these people. Where was your outrage at that indifference?

"never inflicted such needless pain and suffering"

again, Obama banned immigration from Iraq, and Bill Clinton banned immigration from Sierra Leone, both cases because of security threats. There was exactly zero liberal outrage over those bans. No one cared.

"Trump does not have a shred of empathy or compassion"

I don't like the guy Paul. But he's not Darth Vader either. Here is one of many, many things I could post.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT6JtUo9Y8uIA6RZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByNXM5bzY 5BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1485816558/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.thepoliticalinsider.com%2fairl ine-couldnt-help-sick-child-so-donald-trump-came-to-the-rescue%2f/RK=0/RS=zby_1YTjUJJRoA5webiUCJyOrBM-

"He has only an insecure ego, quick to be insulted and to insult"

That I agree with. The rest, not so much.

brilliant strategy

And even worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, apparently.

Nope, no double standard.

So what was it, when Obama and Bill Clinton did it?

I was talking about Trump in general and not specifically to the recent ban but I believe that there was never a 'ban" by Obama. If I remember correctly, we discovered someone who had been admitted from Iraq was later found to have some terrorist connection or something similiar so they decided to look at all of the people who were previously admitted and to impose new harsher checks and that delayed those in the pipeline. I think the entry of green card and visa holders was not impacted also.

Trump claimed he discussed it w/various departments (state, homeland, etc) and they have all said he didn't.

So the slow down w/Obama was as a result of an actual incident while Trump's is not.

I was talking about Trump in general and not specifically to the recent ban but I believe that there was never a 'ban" by Obama. If I remember correctly, we discovered someone who had been admitted from Iraq was later found to have some terrorist connection or something similiar so they decided to look at all of the people who were previously admitted and to impose new harsher checks and that delayed those in the pipeline. I think the entry of green card and visa holders was not impacted also.

Trump claimed he discussed it w/various departments (state, homeland, etc) and they have all said he didn't.

So the slow down w/Obama was as a result of an actual incident while Trump's is not.

"I believe that there was never a 'ban" by Obama."

A 6-month moratorium. Look it up. http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/01/29/flashback-obama-2011-suspended-iraq-refugee-program-six-months-terrorism-fears/

"Obama was as a result of an actual incident while Trump's is not"

Oh, I see! So according to you, then, it's better to wait until after an incident happens and then respond, than it is to prevent a terrorist incident. I'd rather stop the incident before it happens.

This is a brutal problem Paul. Like it or not, Trump's first priority is the welfare of Americans over the welfare of anyone else. That's not always easy. If Trump did this because he is a bigot, shame on him. If he did this because he genuinely feels there is a risk to letting refugees in, well then, that sounds an awful lot like what Obama and Clinton did. And that didn't stop Obama and Clinton from becoming liberal heroes.

"I believe that there was never a 'ban" by Obama."

A 6-month moratorium. Look it up. http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/01/29/flashback-obama-2011-suspended-iraq-refugee-program-six-months-terrorism-fears/Breitbart :hf1: find another source - one that is honest. As I said it did not effect people w/green cards or visas like this did.

"Obama was as a result of an actual incident while Trump's is not"

Oh, I see! So according to you, then, it's better to wait until after an incident happens and then respond, than it is to prevent a terrorist incident. I'd rather stop the incident before it happens.Increased vetting was put into place after that incident to prevent future incidents (which have not happened).

This is a brutal problem Paul. Like it or not, Trump's first priority is the welfare of Americans over the welfare of anyone else. That's not always easy. If Trump did this because he is a bigot, shame on him. If he did this because he genuinely feels there is a risk to letting refugees in, well then, that sounds an awful lot like what Obama and Clinton did. And that didn't stop Obama and Clinton from becoming liberal heroes.

Do some research and you will see it is VASTLY different from what Obama did. You're getting your info. from a source that has been dishonest in the past.

Do some research and you will see it is VASTLY different from what Obama did. You're getting your info. from a source that has been dishonest in the past.

"Do some research and you will see it is VASTLY different from what Obama did"

How so, Paul? I made my claim, I supported it with a link.

I figured you'd like my source. When 95% of the media won't report anything that makes Obama look anything less than perfect, the options do get limited. If The New York Times took their profession seriously, they would have reported on it. I haven't heard anyone (except you) deny that Obama implemented a ban. Yes, the ban was enacted after it was alleged that terrorists had smuggled themselves in with the refugees. Seems to me, that alone, suggests Trump has a point.

Isn't it better to be proactive than reactive, when it comes to terrorism? You made it sound like waiting until after the incident happened, is the better way to go.

"Do some research and you will see it is VASTLY different from what Obama did"

How so, Paul? I made my claim, I supported it with a link.

.

I told you - visas and greencards. Plus Pres. Trump said he was going to give preference to Christians.

Even his VP said it wasn't right -

In 12/15 Pence said
Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.
— Governor Mike Pence (@GovPenceIN) December 8, 2015

from a quick search.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.341c13bbba5f



http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

Paul, I have no doubt that there are differences between what Obama did and what Trump did. Different time, different circumstances, different men.

But there had to have been a lot of similarities. Trump is being criticized for increasing the suffering of the refugees, for causing families to be split apart. I have zero doubt that will happen as a result of his ban. I also have zero doubt that Obama's ban caused innocent people to suffer, and for families to be apart.

My point is this...the criticism aimed at Trumps ban, don't seem to be limited to the parts of his ban that are different from what Obama did (other than the religious litmus test, but that seems to bother me more than it bothers most other people).

You credited Obama for waiting until after there was a threat. Maybe that's valid praise. Maybe Trump jumped the gun a bit (for the sake of safety). But read the criticism most people are throwing around, and ask yourself if the majority of that criticism couldn't be equally applied to what Obama and Clinton did.

As for the Christian preference over Muslims. I don't like it. But the fact is, one of those religions is inspiring violent jihad, the other isn't. I don't like that fact any more than you do, but it is still fact. we can ignore it, or we can deal with it.

How many Christians did Obama bomb with drones? Zero.

How is it "unconstitutional" to do anything to anyone who isn't a US citizen? Doesn't the constitution only apply to US citizens?

Increased vetting was put into place after that incident to prevent future incidents (which have not happened).

I guess these don't count....

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks-us-visa-process-tashfeen-maliks-remarks-on-social-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html

http://nypost.com/2016/11/28/active-shooter-reported-at-ohio-state-university/

Breitbart isn't a trustworthy source, but the Washington Post is a non-partisan fact machine. They keep their cards really close to their vests over at the Washington Post, no way of telling which way they lean.

Anyway, from your link:

"the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011"

That's not a ban? How is it different from an immigration ban? Please explain. Good luck.

"the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011"

That's not a ban? How is it different from an immigration ban? Please explain. Good luck.

it was a "pause"...like global warming...or, it's government so maybe a coffee break?

He has betrayed our ideals,

No he has not.

America does not treat human beings with such utter contempt,

His ban is not based on contempt. Nor is it an act of contempt.

we’ve never had such an indifference to others’ welfare and never inflicted such needless pain and suffering.

Yes we have. Many times throughout our history. And have done so to our own as well. And your notion of it being "needless" is not accurate.

Why are the Saudi’s or UAE excluded?

Do you want them to be?

Trump does not have a shred of empathy or compassion.

Of course he does. You are telling a contemptuous lie.

He has only an insecure ego, quick to be insulted and to insult.

He seems to have a big ego. Doesn't sound insecure. He stands up to both parties and the media without fear. Which is why so many Americans like him-- a lot of Americans who have felt insulted, ignored, and treated with contempt by establishment politicians, the Press, and opinion mongers who characterize them with baseless, unwarranted, negative accusations such as homophobes, misogynists, racists, mean spirited, closed minded, stupid, crass troglodytes, bitter clingers, Xenophobes, deplorable, and endless other ad hoc labels. Neither you, nor the elites, nor the Press seem to get it. That is a major reason why he got elected. And as you all continue to keep calling them the same things, including the laughable "un-American," the more they will support Trump.

If you want them to abandon Trump, give all Americans, not just the ones you like, the respect they deserve.

He may be quick to insult those who insult him. That's OK with me. I am not a turn your other cheek guy. And its more than OK with the "deplorables."

Breitbart isn't a trustworthy source, but the Washington Post is a non-partisan fact machine. They keep their cards really close to their vests over at the Washington Post, no way of telling which way they lean.

Anyway, from your link:

"the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011"

That's not a ban? How is it different from an immigration ban? Please explain. Good luck.

Do refugees have visas/green cards?

I guess these don't count....

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks-us-visa-process-tashfeen-maliks-remarks-on-social-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html

http://nypost.com/2016/11/28/active-shooter-reported-at-ohio-state-university/

Where those 2 from Iraq?

Do refugees have visas/green cards?

Is there a problem about green cards?

Do refugees have visas/green cards?

I presume that the people who Obama banned from coming from Iraq, didn't yet have visas or green cards. I also presume that the refugees that Trump wants to ban from coming, don't have them either.

I think you are desperate to find some difference between what Trump and Obama did, so that you can bash Trump while praising Obama.

it was a "pause"...like global warming...or, it's government so maybe a coffee break?

A union-mandated 6-month coffee break.

Where those 2 from Iraq?

No, but they came through the same vetting process you just claimed works better since 2011.

I presume that the people who Obama banned from coming from Iraq, didn't yet have visas or green cards. I also presume that the refugees that Trump wants to ban from coming, don't have them either.

I think you are desperate to find some difference between what Trump and Obama did, so that you can bash Trump while praising Obama.

No, you are totally wrong. There is a huge difference between slowing down refugees and banning visa/greeen card users. In addition, Pres. Trump. also seems to have given preference to Christians.

So I guess I had luck in this discussion:laugha:

Edit - I just read there was no period of time during the Obama admin. when there where no refugees admitted.

In addition, Pres. Trump. also seems to have given preference to Christians.



call it "Affirmative Action" for Christians :hihi:...should make it more palatable to the left

No, you are totally wrong. There is a huge difference between slowing down refugees and banning visa/greeen card users. In addition, Pres. Trump. also seems to have given preference to Christians.

So I guess I had luck in this discussion:laugha:

"There is a huge difference between slowing down refugees and banning visa/greeen card users"

Please explain. Repeating your claim, isn't supporting it. I don't even know which POTUS did what in your example, I truly do not.

"Pres. Trump. also seems to have given preference to Christians."

I said that makes me uneasy. But Obama also gave preference to Christians, when he chose to only drop bombs on Muslims. Right?

At this point in time, on this planet, one religion is inspiring violent jihad. We can pretend that's not true for the sake of political correctness, or we can accept it.

"There is a huge difference between slowing down refugees and banning visa/greeen card users"

Please explain. Repeating your claim, isn't supporting it. I don't even know which POTUS did what in your example, I truly do not.

.

So your argueing something w/o knowing the facts? Refugee, green card/visa holder are not the same. - that is the difference and it is a big difference. One of those links I provided even said something like "people are conflating refugees and green card holders". And while I believe you mentioned it bothers you, Pres. Obama did not give preference to Christians.

So your argueing something w/o knowing the facts? Refugee, green card/visa holder are not the same. - that is the difference and it is a big difference. One of those links I provided even said something like "people are conflating refugees and green card holders". And while I believe you mentioned it bothers you, Pres. Obama did not give preference to Christians.

I know the important facts, I don't think I am aware of meaningless details. I don't know what kind of tie each POTUS was wearing when he signed the order, for instance. Because it doesn't matter.

So which POTUS banned those with green cards, and which banned those without green cards. And why is one an example of brilliant foreign policy, while the other is a moral abomination?

"Pres. Obama did not give preference to Christians"

He didn't bomb any. He bombed a whole lot of Muslims. Bombing terrorists involves collateral damage to other, innocent Muslims.

Refugee, green card/visa holder are not the same. - that is the difference and it is a big difference.

they are spelled differently too

Pres. Obama did not give preference to Christians.

that's because he is a muslim?

the internet is ruining society

So your argueing something w/o knowing the facts? Refugee, green card/visa holder are not the same. - that is the difference and it is a big difference. One of those links I provided even said something like "people are conflating refugees and green card holders". And while I believe you mentioned it bothers you, Pres. Obama did not give preference to Christians.

You keep bringing up the green card thing. That has been cleared up, and the executive order did not deny entry by green card holders. Green card holders have already been vetted and legally accepted. "Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who wrote, 'In applying the provisions of the president’s executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.'” The administration explained that full details of the plan could not be broadcasted a week ahead of implementation because that would have given the "bad guys a week to get in. Take it or leave it, believe or don't, in either case the matter has been resolved.

I know the important factsno, you don't know the important facts.I've attempted to point them out to you a few times., I don't think I am aware of meaningless detailswrong - I attempted to get out my crayons but you don't seem to recognize the difference.. I don't know what kind of tie each POTUS was wearing when he signed the order, for instance. Because it doesn't matter.

So which POTUS banned those with green cards, and which banned those without green cards. And why is one an example of brilliant foreign policy, while the other is a moral abomination?

"Pres. Obama did not give preference to Christians"

He didn't bomb any. He bombed a whole lot of Muslims. Bombing terrorists involves collateral damage to other, innocent Muslims.
nm

nm

OK, I asked in good faith, 3 times, why there is a vast moral difference between banning refugees and banning those with green cards. All you can say is "there is a difference". You literally offered nothing more than that.

Detbuch's post says that Trump's order does not deny entry to those with green cards.

In both cases, Obama/Trump halted immigration from war-torn places. Though both did it for security reasons, both also had the effect of increasing the suffering to some innocent victims who would have benefitted from coming here. Paul, is that true or false?

OK, I asked in good faith, 3 times, why there is a vast moral difference between banning refugees and banning those with green cards. All you can say is "there is a difference". You literally offered nothing more than that. I've told you why it is different and why that difference matters yet you expect me to do all the work for you.

Detbuch's post says that Trump's order does not deny entry to those with green cards.It certainly did. I understand that Reince later walked the intent of the order due to the backlash.

In both cases, Obama/Trump halted immigration from war-torn places. Though both did it for security reasons, both also had the effect of increasing the suffering to some innocent victims who would have benefitted from coming here. Paul, is that true or false?

100% False - With Pres. Obama it wasn't a halt - it slowed it down. And it didn't ban greencard holders like this order did.

And I've heard for 8 years about Pres. Obama's used of executive orders. How many has Pres. Trump issued in the first week?

the internet is ruining society

or at least this site. :D

the internet is ruining society

blame Al Gore...he invented it

100% F

And I've heard for 8 years about Pres. Obama's used of executive orders. How many has Pres. Trump issued in the first week?

not nearly enough...but give him time :kewl:

Here is the entire text of Trump's executive order. Nowhere in the text does it use the word "Ban","Muslim" or "Christian"


PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 27, 2017

My initial post seems to only be a springboard for the ongoing battle I see waging on this political forum, but IMHO and many share it as well, is that this ban will only strengthen the resolve of the terrorists this ban is supposed to protect us from.

Trump couldn't give the radicals recruitment efforts a better boast and considering a lot of these terrorists have and will be home grown, why would we carelessly implement something that will only make it that much easier to convert a US citizen to join their cause.

I'm all for making damn sure we know exactly who is coming and going into this country and homeland security absolutely must be a major priority for any administration in this fd up world we live in, but this move is not making us safer. If I were the IT manager for the radical Islamic nut jobs, man did my job just get easier, see the evil Americans go. If I were a Muslim living in this country, citizen or not, boy not only would I be losing sleep; I'd be getting some better home security of my own.

I'm not sleeping any easier and the fire first ask questions later mentality is dangerous at best. I just see this getting uglier as we go forward, too many people on the streets and too much hatred in the air; man I need a Super Bowl to get positive.

100% False - With Pres. Obama it wasn't a halt - it slowed it down. And it didn't ban greencard holders like this order did.

And I've heard for 8 years about Pres. Obama's used of executive orders. How many has Pres. Trump issued in the first week?

"I've told you why it is different "

Here's all your posts on the subject.

"it did not effect people w/green cards or visas like this did." - no explanation of why they are different, just a statement that they are different.

"I think the entry of green card and visa holders was not impacted also"

"I told you - visas and greencards"

"Do refugees have visas/green cards?"

"There is a huge difference between slowing down refugees and banning visa/greeen card users" No mention of what the difference is, exactly.

"Refugee, green card/visa holder are not the same. - that is the difference and it is a big difference" Again, no details as to what the difference is.

"I've told you why it is different and why that difference matters" - I would love to see where you told me that.

"And it (Obama's order) didn't ban greencard holders like this order did."

So which post exactly, explains what the difference is, and why that difference matters?

[QUOTE=The Dad Fisherman;1116023]Here is the entire text of Trump's executive order. Nowhere in the text does it use the word "Ban","Muslim" or "Christian"


right....but it "seems" as though he "appears" to imply those things...at least to some... one of whom may be currently huddled in a corner of an igloo somewhere in Canada hugging a Hillary doll....

this ban will only strengthen the resolve of the terrorists this ban is supposed to protect us from.

.

But everything we do angers them. The only way we can get them to stop recruiting jihadists, is to adopt Sharia law, and then nuke Israel. Should we do that to appease them? Obama (to his credit) bomber the bejeezus out of these people for 8 years, and no one criticized him on the grounds that it would be used as effective recruiting.

We let our daughters learn to read, and we don't mutilate their genitalia. That is also used by these barbarians to recruit jihadists.

That's the point. Everything we do that is civilized, makes them (some of them) want to kill us. We will never convince them otherwise. Never.

Our goal shouldn't be to minimize the extent to which we anger these people. The goal is to wipe them off the face of the earth.

this ban will only strengthen the resolve of the terrorists this ban is supposed to protect us from.

.

if you've reached the point in your life where you've become a terrorist...I don't think you require any additional motivation...you are at "maximum resolve"

"I've told you why it is different "

Here's all your posts on the subject.

"it did not effect people w/green cards or visas like this did." - no explanation of why they are different, just a statement that they are different.so, let me get out the crayons - 1 impacted "green cards/visas" and 1 did not.

"I think the entry of green card and visa holders was not impacted also"

"I told you - visas and greencards"

"Do refugees have visas/green cards?"

"There is a huge difference between slowing down refugees and banning visa/greeen card users" No mention of what the difference is, exactly.

"Refugee, green card/visa holder are not the same. - that is the difference and it is a big difference" Again, no details as to what the difference is.

"I've told you why it is different and why that difference matters" - I would love to see where you told me that.

"And it (Obama's order) didn't ban greencard holders like this order did."

So which post exactly, explains what the difference is, and why that difference matters?

So you want me to explain the difference bt a refugee and a green card/visa holder? As I've stated numerous times 1 impacted visa and green card holders and 1 did not. That is the key.

Also as I mentioned, there was never a "ban" during Pres. Obama's time. Only a slowdown.

So you want me to explain the difference bt a refugee and a green card/visa holder?

one is walking and the other is running....

So you want me to explain the difference bt a refugee and a green card/visa holder? As I've stated numerous times 1 impacted visa and green card holders and 1 did not. That is the key.

Also as I mentioned, there was never a "ban" during Pres. Obama's time. Only a slowdown.

I get that 1 group has visas/green cards (maybe, not according to detbuch) and one does not. What I don't get, is why banning one group is brilliant foreign policy, while banning the other group, is un-American. If there is a legitimate security threat form a group of green card holders, we have no choice but to let them in and keep our fingers crossed? Not buying it.

Also as I mentioned, there was never a "ban" during Pres. Obama's time. Only a slowdown.

Whatever.

Here is the entire text of Trump's executive order. Nowhere in the text does it use the word "Ban","Muslim" or "Christian"





Correct sir,

yet minds are being lost



looks like a suspension to issue visas to me from certain countries

Whatever.

So your whole premise was wrong.

Correct sir,

yet minds are being lost



looks like a suspension to issue visas to me from certain countries

Looks like even Pres. Trump was calling it a ban (amd Jim referred to it as a ban).

If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 30, 2017

And that he wants to "prioritize Christians"

Trump hinted that he would be prioritizing Christians before the order was released on Friday. Here's the transcript of Trump's exchange with the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody:
BRODY: "Persecuted Christians, we've talked about this, the refugees overseas. The refugee program, or the refugee changes you're looking to make. As it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority here?"
TRUMP: "Yes."
BRODY: "You do?"
TRUMP: "They've been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."

Green card holders were not specifically noted in the executive order. But if there arose a question about it, or any other exceptions, the order allowed Homeland security to determine eligibility case by case, which would allow green card holders who did not pose some apparent threat to be allowed back in:

Section 4(e) of the order: Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

So, per that, green card holders are not being denied entry. And, although the Exec Order does not specify Christians as possible exceptions to denial of entry, the order does specify religious minorities facing persecution in the specified countries. Christians, and Yazidis, certainly fit that category.

I don't tweet,
and I am not offended by how crass Trump is or by his political incorrectness. I have seen enough of this countries' safety and security for it's actual citizens put in the way back seat for too long now. The refugees should go to Saudi Arabia where it is closer and they have space all set up for plenty, why do we always have to be the savior of the world? It's about time our leader puts America first at something. I am too busy to know all the ins and outs of your issues with things, that is why we have government to do that and journalists to report it, if there wasn't so much greed and corruption, then the country might not be as divided as it has gotten over the last 8 years. Forgive me for thinking out loud but it's time to take back America or lose it to the power control freakin billionaires.

A Trump lawyer was on CNN, saying unequivocally, that the order does not prevent existing green card holders from entering the country. Not vouching for the guy, but he said what Detbuch did, and the CNN host had nothing to challenge him.

IThe refugees should go to Saudi Arabia where it is closer and they have space all set up for plenty, why do we always have to be the savior of the world? It's about time our leader puts America first at something.

You may get your wish . . . sort of. Reuters reported that Trump made a phone call today to king Salman of Saudi Arabia who agreed to supporting safe zones for the refugees in Syria and Yemen.

A Trump lawyer was on CNN, saying unequivocally, that the order does not prevent existing green card holders from entering the country. Not vouching for the guy, but he said what Detbuch did, and the CNN host had nothing to challenge him.

It originally did and then at some point they changed so that it did not cover green cards. I haven't heard about visas but would guess they are being treated the same as green cards.

It originally did and then at some point they changed so that it did not cover green cards. I haven't heard about visas but would guess they are being treated the same as green cards.

So your whole premise was wrong.

It originally did and then at some point they changed so that it did not cover green cards. I haven't heard about visas but would guess they are being treated the same as green cards.

Please show me where Trump's original, released, executive order mentioned Green cards? and why now it doesn't?

I'm pretty sure if there was a newer EO released we would have heard all about it.

your post also tells me you never read the EO that he released because he does address VISA's in it.

"We’re waiting for the briefing tomorrow, a pause may be necessary. We’re going to look at it." -Senator Charles Schumer in 2015, acknowledging that the U.S. might have to stop importing Syrian refugees after the horrific Paris terrorist attack.

"We must tighten loopholes in the Visa Waiver prgm, ensure passports can’t be faked & stop terrorists who want to exploit the system." -the same Charles Schumer, in a subsequent "tweet"

"“This executive order was mean-spirited and un-American." -the very same Charles Schumer earlier today.

Funny how he evolved on the subject, as soon as a Republican took the oath.

It originally did and then at some point they changed so that it did not cover green cards. I haven't heard about visas but would guess they are being treated the same as green cards.

OK. So as Trump's ban stands now, how is it materially different from what Obama did in Iraq, or what Bill Clinton did in Sierra Leone?

[QUOTE=The Dad Fisherman;1116023]Here is the entire text of Trump's executive order. Nowhere in the text does it use the word "Ban","Muslim" or "Christian"


right....but it "seems" as though he "appears" to imply those things...at least to some... one of whom may be currently huddled in a corner of an igloo somewhere in Canada hugging a Hillary doll....

That almost made me pee my pants.

I guess the real question is How afraid are you of the Big bad wolf and what are you willing to give up .. to not be afraid of the big bad wolf ...

personally the big bad wolf is a creation to gain control.. its created to keep people in Fear so they can do as they wish .. all in the name of Security the same thing happen after 9-11 but every one forgets that power grab ....

Obama didn't get a free pass Nor will Trump with his executive orders especially
the one's his own departments are confused on how and who to apply them

the big bad wolf is definitely the real question....:huh:...the Brothers Grimm were quite devious :read:

This was posted by my Battalion commander who I served with in Iraq who is now a Fullbird Col at Fort Stewart GA I think it shows my big bad wolf analogy..

So your whole premise was wrong.

Not at all. It shows how badly it was rolled out.

Please show me where Trump's original, released, executive order mentioned Green cards? and why now it doesn't? Is this like your statement earlier saying it never mentioned a ban or didn't favor Christians when infact both of those were the intent.

I'm pretty sure if there was a newer EO released we would have heard all about it.

your post also tells me you never read the EO that he released because he does address VISA's in it.

Your right I didn't - big deal, I was going by what the President's admin. was saying. If they all aren't on the same page, I guess that is something they need to work out. They are saying today it was rolled out badly. Dept. heads heard about it at the same time it they were being briefed.

Your right I didn't - big deal, I was going by what the President's admin. was saying. If they all aren't on the same page, I guess that is something they need to work out. They are saying today it was rolled out badly. Dept. heads heard about it at the same time it they were being briefed.

keep moving the goal posts

This was posted by my Battalion commander who I served with in Iraq who is now a Fullbird Col at Fort Stewart GA I think it shows my big bad wolf analogy..

the big bad wolf wasn't driving around with a COEXIST bumper sticker on the back of his Subaru

keep moving the goal posts

Not at all. Pls. explain your snarkiness? How did I move the goal post? Isn't it the Admin. who is moving the goal posts?

Is this like when KA Conway said you have to go by what is in the President's heart and ignore what he says?

keep moving the goal posts

Yeah, just that same old tactic to prevent the winning field goal. But it was OK for the lefties to roll out Obama Care way more badly than how Trump's executive order was supposedly rolled out. And we were supposed to understand that, of course, there were things about the ACA that needed to be fixed, and that it needed to be passed to find out what was in it, and that it was necessary to pass it without any Republican approval, and that it was important to just get it passed and worry about details later. We were supposed to give it time to get better. No matter if it temporarily created some hardships. That was necessary for the greater good.

Well, it seems that the badness of not being on the same page about green cards and visas was straightened out in day or two, but Obamacare badness just got worse.

I guess the real question is How afraid are you of the Big bad wolf and what are you willing to give up .. to not be afraid of the big bad wolf ...

personally the big bad wolf is a creation to gain control.. its created to keep people in Fear so they can do as they wish .. all in the name of Security the same thing happen after 9-11 but every one forgets that power grab ....

Obama didn't get a free pass Nor will Trump with his executive orders especially
the one's his own departments are confused on how and who to apply them

"personally the big bad wolf is a creation to gain control"

I see. The threat of Islamic jihad, is a fabrication, designed to gain control. Tell that to the people who had their legs blown off at the Boston Marathon. Tell that to the people who jumped out of the World Trade Center.

It seems to me that if you kill the big bad wolf that wants to eat you, you don't have to be afraid of it anymore. But if you let it roam around outside of your gate, you will be in constant fear . . . that is such a harsh word to the ears of the compassionate--how about mildly disturbed? . . . that you will be in constant mild disturbance that it will sneak in and make you greatly disturbed, to say the least. Oh, that's right, you can wait for the inevitable and kill it when it does finally sneak in. Or better yet, out of compassion and understanding, you can keep throwing some meat over the fence to keep it satisfied. You'd better not run out of meat. And don't let your children run outside of your fence. But that's Ok, because, after all, it will eventually like you and be your friend if you keep feeding it meat.

But it might cause you to feel a little uncomfortable when you get reports about this brand of wolf seeming to not be so reciprocally kind when it is, or becomes, the dominant power. Maybe not all brands of wolves are the same? Maybe some can be domesticated and turned into nice puppies who appreciate your largesse and maybe only occasionally poop in places that you don't like, but mostly will be obedient dogs, who do your bidding, and even help protect your home, even fight other big bad wolves outside the gate.

And maybe some, because of the nature of their brand, cannot be domesticated.

And you keep getting reports of this brand of wolves mostly preferring to breed strictly among their own and never really, in their deepest identity, desiring to be somebody's pet dog. That they have a certain, indomitable sense of pride which they deem makes them superior. That in their minds they are actually, especially when they are banded together as they prefer to do, a superior breed. And you observe that they tend to multiply rapidly, and seem always to produce wild ones who cause deadly trouble to hosts, or total domination of others when they gain control.

It might give you pause to think about if they can be domesticated, and about how to discern which ones are prone not to be domesticated, about which ones would actually bite the hand that feeds them. You might want to actually figure out, in spite of the difficulty of adding them to your already divided turbulent household, if they are a good addition, and how to go about doing that and which ones are the most promising to let in.

Or you can just role out your red carpet and compassionately let in the ones who were wounded by their own kind. And because of that, believe that they are different wolves and will actually choose (sort of like transgenders) to become (identify as) sheep rather than merely wearing sheep's clothing .

Of course, there are many in your house who see these wolves as allies to gain power over their rival siblings and want enough of them in to solidify that power.

Sorry if that sounds harsh to the snowflakes. But reality is not always kind.

Do I think that Muslims are, by nature, wolves--big bad ones? Of course not. Not by nature. By nature they are different only by genetic tribal differences. And those natural differences are probably not an impediment to peacefully admix in society with others.

It is not in their human nature that Muslims have difficulty cooperating with non-Muslims within a society whose greater purpose is the protection of individual differences, it is in their Islamic dogma where the difficulty occurs. That can only be denied in theory, not in fact.

In theory, Islam can be transformed to fit the modern world. In fact, that has not yet happened. Perhaps Western countries, especially in North America, can help to bring about that transformation by intermingling large numbers of selected Muslims into their societies. As of now, that would be a social experiment. And the outcome is not certain. We like to believe that our Western ways are so superior that those who are freely allowed to live them will prefer them to the cultures from which they came. They will prefer it so much that they will give up their deepest spiritual beliefs, or at least tweak them to fit the greater society. Many Muslims profess the desire to do just that. The problem is that the sources of Islam, Mecca and Tehran, must decree any transformation for the religion to be changed. And to do that in a way that is compatible with Western society, the Islamic rulers in Saudi Arabia and Iran, must dissolve the theocratic power they have over their people and Muslims in the rest of the world. And the difficulty in rewriting the story of Muhammad so that the change is not so noticeable and is believable and without causing turmoil throughout the Islamic world is unimaginable. But, theoretically possible.

When, and if, that fundamental transformation happens, Muslims would not pose the existential threat that so many fear. Unfortunately, there are other problems and dangers in expanding "diversity." I'm, personally, all aboard with cultural variety. I particularly love the wide choice of cheap restaurants that immigrants provide. I love the variety of faces. The different genetic pool, if it actually mixes rather than balkanizes, is healthy.

What I don't love is the importation of mind-sets which see government as a ruling class rather than a serving one. I don't like the importation of group think over individualism. I hate the importation of people to be used as dependents who will sustain Party power.

Other than all that, hey, c'mon in. Contribute to our wealth and productivity rather than leaching off of it. Assimilate. Become AMERICANS first. Love this country and its founding structure. And preserve that structure despite the attempts to use you all as useful idiots to maintain the power of those who wish to make you, and the rest of us, perpetual dependents.

And don't get upset when we want to check you out more thoroughly rather than giving you an EZ pass through gate.

Is this like your statement earlier saying it never mentioned a ban or didn't favor Christians when infact both of those were the intent. .

There's that word "Intent" again....amazing how that word was completely lost during the Hillary e-mail scandal, but *POOF* it's back

Trump's EO didn't mention a ban, Muslims, Christians, or Green Cards....but you didn't even read it....so you're arguments are falling on completely deaf ears.

Your right I didn't - big deal, I was going by what the President's admin. was saying. If they all aren't on the same page, I guess that is something they need to work out. They are saying today it was rolled out badly. Dept. heads heard about it at the same time it they were being briefed.

There's that word "Intent" again....amazing how that word was completely lost during the Hillary e-mail scandal, but *POOF* it's back

Trump's EO didn't mention a ban, Muslims, Christians, or Green Cards....but you didn't even read it....so you're arguments are falling on completely deaf earsThen why respond?.

But you read it (or did you just do a search for those words?) and you still don't know what the intent was. Maybe you should read it a little slower and think about what it means. How was that?

Even Paul Ryan knows the "intent"

"Now, I think it’s regrettable that there was some confusion on the rollout of this,” Mr. Ryan added. “No one wanted to see people with green cards or special immigrant visas, like translators, get caught up in all of this."

I might have even posted a tweet of Pres. Trump's where he called it a "ban".

GREAT post debutch:cheers:

But you read it (or did you just do a search for those words?) and you still don't know what the intent was. Maybe you should read it a little slower and think about what it means. How was that?

Even Paul Ryan knows the "intent"

"Now, I think it’s regrettable that there was some confusion on the rollout of this,” Mr. Ryan added. “No one wanted to see people with green cards or special immigrant visas, like translators, get caught up in all of this."

I might have even posted a tweet of Pres. Trump's where he called it a "ban".

There is nothing in the quote you posted by Ryan that says The executive order intended to ban green card holders or those with special visas. He regrets that there was confusion. That does not mean he thinks there was intent to block green card or special visa holders. He fully supports the EO as written. And depending on Trump to define something requires understanding his special (alaternative :eek:) use of language.

GREAT post debutch:cheers:

which one?

the long one

post #88

WASHINGTON ― It’s been less than a week since President Donald Trump signed a sweeping ban on certain foreign nationals and all refugees entering the U.S., but his administration has already had to make multiple tweaks to account for its vague language.

The administration made another change on Wednesday. A counsel to the president issued guidance to government agencies saying the executive order does not apply to legal permanent residents, also known as green card holders, and that they will no longer need special waivers to re-enter the U.S. White House press secretary Sean Spicer announced the “update,” as he put it, during a daily briefing with reporters.

Trump’s initial executive order , which he signed Friday, was phrased so broadly that it affected green card holders who had left the country only to find out later that the president had tried to block their return.

The order bars most nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries ― Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen ― from entering the country for at least 90 days. It also suspends refugee resettlement for 120 days, and indefinitely blocks Syrian refugees from the United States.

The ban was applied to legal permanent residents originally from those seven countries, many of whom were initially detained upon returning to the United States. More than 1,000 of them were admitted under special waivers. Now, based on the White House guidance, those individuals will not need a waiver.

The Department of Homeland Security announced additional exceptions to the ban on Tuesday, including Iraqis who worked for the U.S. government in positions such as translators. Officials also said the ban does not apply to dual nationals of the seven countries. For example, someone with Syrian and French nationality can enter the U.S. using their French passport.

The exceptions only apply to a small fraction of the population potentially affected by the order: tens of thousands of refugees and millions of citizens of the seven countries who are still barred from visiting the U.S. to work, study, see family or receive medical care.

The initial language allowed for very few exceptions. Some Republicans particularly balked at the inclusion of legal permanent residents and Iraqis who assisted U.S. troops. Members of Congress said they received little guidance about the order, even after it went into effect.

Trump has denied that there were any issues with implementing the order.

“It’s working out very nicely,” he said Saturday.


The latest change to the order came after Donald McGahn, counsel to the president, advised that there was “reasonable uncertainty about whether those provisions apply to lawful permanent residents,” Politico first reported

Big deal.

"personally the big bad wolf is a creation to gain control"

I see. The threat of Islamic jihad, is a fabrication, designed to gain control. Tell that to the people who had their legs blown off at the Boston Marathon. Tell that to the people who jumped out of the World Trade Center.


yes Islamic Jihad is a Fabrication and

this fabrications has cost 4,424 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,952 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

2,386 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,834 of these deaths have been the result of hostile action. 20,049 American service members have also been wounded in action during the war. In addition, there were 1,173 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities.

1983 bombing at a Marine compound in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 US service personnel.

all Created By F up US interventions

yes Islamic Jihad is a Fabrication

So what happened on 9/11? At Ft Hood? In Boston? In Paris? What organization was Osama Bin Laden the leader of, and what was their goal?

So what happened on 9/11? At Ft Hood? In Boston? In Paris? What organization was Osama Bin Laden the leader of, and what was their goal?


Murder ... what was Timothy McVeigh motive ?? just because it didn't have religion attached it is still terrorism


the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism

terrorist leaders like Bin Laden use the parts of their religion to control their minions ,, the IRA did the same and Goverments use the counter narrative of freedom and security to justify their action and limit the freedoms they say they support

Murder ... what was Timothy McVeigh motive ?? just because it didn't have religion attached it is still terrorism


the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism

terrorist leaders like Bin Laden use the parts of their religion to control their minions ,, the IRA did the same and Goverments use the counter narrative of freedom and security to justify their action and limit the freedoms they say they support

"what was Timothy McVeigh motive ?? "

Anti-federal government. Fair enough?

"just because it didn't have religion attached it is still terrorism"

Agreed 100%. McVeigh was an ultra right wing, anti federal government terrorist. People who bomb abortion clinics are Christian terrorists. But while one is too many of these kooks, there aren't a lot of them. If 1% of Muslims support jihad, that's millions and millions of them.

You seem to be making the case that there are other terrorists besides Islamic jihadists. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. But you also said the notion of Islamic jihad was a fabrication. Not true. Just because not all terrorists are Islamic, doesn't mean there's no such thing as an Islamic terrorist.

"what was Timothy McVeigh motive ?? "

Anti-federal government. Fair enough?

"just because it didn't have religion attached it is still terrorism"

Agreed 100%. McVeigh was an ultra right wing, anti federal government terrorist. People who bomb abortion clinics are Christian terrorists. But while one is too many of these kooks, there aren't a lot of them. If 1% of Muslims support jihad, that's millions and millions of them.

You seem to be making the case that there are other terrorists besides Islamic jihadists. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. But you also said the notion of Islamic jihad was a fabrication. Not true. Just because not all terrorists are Islamic, doesn't mean there's no such thing as an Islamic terrorist.


Let me clarify is there Islamic jihad yes .. The fabrication I refer is the threat they actually pose to the United states ... thats where I call the BS card

Research into terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 shows foreign nationals from those countries have killed no Americans

Let me clarify is there Islamic jihad yes .. The fabrication I refer is the threat they actually pose to the United states ... thats where I call the BS card

Research into terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 shows foreign nationals from those countries have killed no Americans

What was the motive of those who killed Americans in the name of Allah?

Research into terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 shows foreign nationals from those countries have killed no Americans

I am not sure who those researchers are that say that but what about how many Americans have been killed over in those countries by their locals? If they want to torture and kill us over there, then why in God's name would we allow them to come here to our country? seriously wtf how come people don't get it?

Let me clarify is there Islamic jihad yes .. The fabrication I refer is the threat they actually pose to the United states ... thats where I call the BS card

Research into terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 shows foreign nationals from those countries have killed no Americans

"Let me clarify is there Islamic jihad yes .. The fabrication I refer is the threat they actually pose to the United states ... thats where I call the BS card "

Well, that is different. We should continually examine the threat they pose, and not over-react to the point it does more harm than good.

"Research into terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 shows foreign nationals from those countries have killed no Americans"

The list of countries subject to the ban, came from the Obama administration. Chuck Schumer, after the Paris attacks, suggested a ban might be necessary Now he cries (literally) that it is un-American. That's political BS.

I am not sure who those researchers are that say that but what about how many Americans have been killed over in those countries by their locals? If they want to torture and kill us over there, then why in God's name would we allow them to come here to our country? seriously wtf how come people don't get it?

Even if they aren't violent people, we need to be very careful about who we let in. We can have different ethnicities, that makes us better as a whole. But we can only have one culture. And these people are not assimilating well, in other western nations, what they do, is establish little enclaves in those western nations that look a lot like the Middle East. No, thanks. The Europeans and Scandanavians are having a real cultural struggle.

Let me clarify is there Islamic jihad yes ..

phew.....thought you'd gone right off the cliff there for a bit :)

So we were less safe in November? but now with Trump in office we are Magically safer ... ok sure we are !!!

info for uniformed Americans : Islamic jihadist Kill other Muslims by the thousands and non Muslims it doesn't not matter to them

But here in America its sold solely as an US against Them argument


The UN concluded that in the first eight months of 2014, at least 9,347 civilians had been killed and at least 17,386 wounded. While all these deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone, ISIS is identified as the primary actor.

Here are a few examples from the report to give you an idea of the way ISIS has methodically slaughtered Muslims:
-On September 5, ISIS executed three Sunni women in Mosul. What was their “crime”? They refused to provide medical care to ISIS fighters.
- On September 9, ISIS executed a Sunni Imam in western Mosul for refusing to swear loyalty to ISIS.
- On August 2, a man from the Salah ad Din province was abducted and beheaded for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS.
-On August 19, a female Muslim doctor south of Mosul was killed for organizing a protest to object to ISIS’ mandate that female doctors cover their faces with religious veils when treating patients
-On August 31, 19 Sunni Muslim men were executed in Saadiya for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS.
-On July 22, a Sunni Imam in Eastern Baquba was killed for simply denouncing ISIS.
-On September 9, ISIS executed two Muslim women by shooting them in the back of the head. Their exact “crime” was not known.
And the list goes on from ISIS slaughtering 1,500 Iraqi soldiers in June to blowing up numerous Sunni mosques because apparently the leaders of those mosques refused to swear loyalty to ISIS.

So we were less safe in November? but now with Trump in office we are Magically safer ... ok sure we are !!!

info for uniformed Americans : Islamic jihadist Kill other Muslims by the thousands and non Muslims it doesn't not matter to them

But here in America its sold solely as an US against Them argument


The UN concluded that in the first eight months of 2014, at least 9,347 civilians had been killed and at least 17,386 wounded. While all these deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone, ISIS is identified as the primary actor.

Here are a few examples from the report to give you an idea of the way ISIS has methodically slaughtered Muslims:
-On September 5, ISIS executed three Sunni women in Mosul. What was their “crime”? They refused to provide medical care to ISIS fighters.
- On September 9, ISIS executed a Sunni Imam in western Mosul for refusing to swear loyalty to ISIS.
- On August 2, a man from the Salah ad Din province was abducted and beheaded for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS.
-On August 19, a female Muslim doctor south of Mosul was killed for organizing a protest to object to ISIS’ mandate that female doctors cover their faces with religious veils when treating patients
-On August 31, 19 Sunni Muslim men were executed in Saadiya for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS.
-On July 22, a Sunni Imam in Eastern Baquba was killed for simply denouncing ISIS.
-On September 9, ISIS executed two Muslim women by shooting them in the back of the head. Their exact “crime” was not known.
And the list goes on from ISIS slaughtering 1,500 Iraqi soldiers in June to blowing up numerous Sunni mosques because apparently the leaders of those mosques refused to swear loyalty to ISIS.

What makes you think that we don't know this? That we are uninformed about it? We have been informed about it over and over. I doubt there is anyone who regularly participates in the political forum is unaware of it.

Those Muslim on Muslim atrocities to which you refer are in Muslim dominated countries. So it would follow that more Muslims would be killed in those countries. As the Muslim population grows, the greater the number of Muslims as well as everyone else standing in their way, will be killed by Jihadists. And it is all the more reason that until we resolve the jihadi problem, the greater the number of Muslims that emigrate to the U.S. the greater the number of Islamic atrocities we will incur, whether they be against Muslims or non-Muslims.

So we were less safe in November? but now with Trump in office we are Magically safer ... ok sure we are !!!

info for uniformed Americans : Islamic jihadist Kill other Muslims by the thousands and non Muslims it doesn't not matter to them

But here in America its sold solely as an US against Them argument


The UN concluded that in the first eight months of 2014, at least 9,347 civilians had been killed and at least 17,386 wounded. While all these deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone, ISIS is identified as the primary actor.

Here are a few examples from the report to give you an idea of the way ISIS has methodically slaughtered Muslims:
-On September 5, ISIS executed three Sunni women in Mosul. What was their “crime”? They refused to provide medical care to ISIS fighters.
- On September 9, ISIS executed a Sunni Imam in western Mosul for refusing to swear loyalty to ISIS.
- On August 2, a man from the Salah ad Din province was abducted and beheaded for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS.
-On August 19, a female Muslim doctor south of Mosul was killed for organizing a protest to object to ISIS’ mandate that female doctors cover their faces with religious veils when treating patients
-On August 31, 19 Sunni Muslim men were executed in Saadiya for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS.
-On July 22, a Sunni Imam in Eastern Baquba was killed for simply denouncing ISIS.
-On September 9, ISIS executed two Muslim women by shooting them in the back of the head. Their exact “crime” was not known.
And the list goes on from ISIS slaughtering 1,500 Iraqi soldiers in June to blowing up numerous Sunni mosques because apparently the leaders of those mosques refused to swear loyalty to ISIS.

"Islamic jihadist Kill other Muslims by the thousands and non Muslims it doesn't not matter to them

But here in America its sold solely as an US against Them argument "

Please name one person of influence, just one, who denies that jihadists kill people other than Americans.

"So we were less safe in November? but now with Trump in office we are Magically safer ... ok sure we are !!! "

Who said that?

Can you stop responding to things that nobody said?

Let me clarify is there Islamic jihad yes .. The fabrication I refer is the threat they actually pose to the United states ... thats where I call the BS card

Research into terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 shows foreign nationals from those countries have killed no Americans

Really??? What was San Bernadino?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who said that?

Can you stop responding to things that nobody said?


The Administration or Haven't you been listening ..I will use a name if it makes it easier when needed

kelly ann conway
"I think in terms of the upside being greater protection of our borders, of our people, it's a small price to pay."

Trump “We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say
“This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.

Please name one person of influence, just one, who denies that jihadists kill people other than Americans. I cant because the dont admit it its not what they talk about its alway thereout to kill us all


why twist what I said it very clear in the united states the Argument id Framed us against them Trump’s action “is a response to a phantom menace.”

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/59075-isis-kill-list-names-15-000-christian-americans-targeted-for-death
According to a report recently made public, early this year, ISIS specifically identified 15,000 Christian Americans for death and instructed jihadists already in America to begin widespread murder.


Rudy Giuliani What we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger,” the former New York City mayor said, in reference to the targeted nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. … It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

info for uniformed Americans : Islamic jihadist Kill other Muslims by the thousands and non Muslims it doesn't not matter to them

But here in America its sold solely as an US against Them argument



sorry...this is just dumb.....uninformed Americans are collectively offended