Trump’s Muslim travel ban

150 comments on “Trump’s Muslim travel ban ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Andre 1

   29 January 2017 at 9:47 am

   More ironies of the ban: of the Islam-linked terror incidents in the US in recent years, none have been perpetrated by citizens of the banned countries. Furthermore, 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, but Saudi Arabia is not on the banned list.

   http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14383316/trump-muslim-ban-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order
   • Psycho Milt 1.1

     29 January 2017 at 10:06 am

     Yes, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are two of the countries with the richest supply of religious fascists, but both are US allies so aren’t included. Iranians haven’t been involved in terrorist attacks against western democracies, but Israel has a problem with them so Iran is included. It’s comically stupid, but then so were the Nazis when they were starting out.
   • saveNZ 1.2

     29 January 2017 at 12:47 pm

     @Andre “15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, but Saudi Arabia is not on the banned list.”

     Never let logic get in the way of ideology and stupidity.

     Also 42,196 were killed in motor accidents in the USA in 2001 while 2996 perished in 9/11 attacks. But do not see a war on car safety into safer public transport!
   • joe90 1.3

     29 January 2017 at 12:52 pm

     but Saudi Arabia is not on the banned list.

     Bad for business.

     Conspicuously, Trump doesn’t hold any business interests in any of the countries on the list, but holds major stakes in several of those excluded from it, records show.

     http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956
     • Andre 1.3.1

       29 January 2017 at 1:00 pm

       I shoulda been able to guess that one.
2. Carolyn_nth 2

   29 January 2017 at 9:57 am

   Justin Trudeau and Nicola Sturgeon Tweet #WelcomeToCanada and #WelcomeToScotland

   Justin Trudeau:

   To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada

   Sturgeon retweeted it with this comment added:

   #WelcomeToScotland too

   what saith Bling, Little, Greens?
   • Barfly 2.1

     29 January 2017 at 11:22 am

     They won’t be talking about it…only votes to be lost there….none to be won
3. garibaldi 3

   29 January 2017 at 9:58 am

   With the unprecedented speed at which these rabid Republicans are rallying around Trumps unbelievable stupidity I predict utter turmoil in the USA in a short time.
   On a related matter their UN envoy’s threats to take names and revenge on any dissenters to their view makes the UN a total waste of time. The world should ‘walk out’ of the UN if this happens and set up an alternative, leaving the USA to fester on its own. Another pipe dream of mine !
4. Carolyn_nth 4

   29 January 2017 at 10:08 am

   California State considers tax strike in response to Trump orders:

   The state of California is studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities, KPIX 5 has learned.

   Officials are looking for money that flows through Sacramento to the federal government that could be used to offset the potential loss of billions of dollars’ worth of federal funds if President Trump makes good on his threat to punish cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal agents’ requests to turn over undocumented immigrants, a senior government source in Sacramento said.

   The federal funds pay for a variety of state and local programs from law enforcement to homeless shelters.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     29 January 2017 at 11:08 am

     Interesting. Wonder if we’ll start seeing attempts at secession from the USA.
     • Andre 4.1.1

       29 January 2017 at 11:26 am

       Calexit referendum organisers are cleared to start collecting signatures to put it on the ballot in 2018. They only need a bit over half a million.

       http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-coming-to-a-clipboard-near-you-1485483444-htmlstory.html
       • Incognito 4.1.1.1

         29 January 2017 at 11:44 am

         Intimidation and fear of ‘reprisals’ may raise its ugly head. In fact, according to the History Textbooks, it is not a matter of if but when.
5. chris73 5

   29 January 2017 at 10:09 am

   I think Billy Bragg (good musician that he is) is being a little misleading in his use of stats as its only going up to 2014, since 2014 there has been 75 deaths, which in the whole scheme of things isn’t a great deal but one of the aims of terrorism isn’t how many you kill but what effects that has on the rest of the population plus the number of attacks is increasing so Trump has decided this is the way to go

   I’m not sure its the best way to go but certainly better then doing nothing

   September 25, 2014 Vaughan Foods beheading incident, (Moore, OK): A Sharia advocate beheads a woman after calling for Islamic terror and posting an Islamist beheading photo.

   United States May 3, 2015 – Two gunmen attacked the Curtis Culwell Center during a ‘Draw Muhammad’ cartoon art exhibit in Garland, Texas . 2 dead (perpetrators) 1 injured.

   July 16, 2015, 2015 Chattanooga shootings, Chattanooga, Tennessee: A Muslim commits a shooting spree at a recruiting center at a strip mall and a naval center, leaving five soldiers dead at the latter location.

   December 2, 2015, 2015 San Bernardino attack, San Bernardino, California: A Muslim couple opens fire at a Christmas party, leaving fourteen dead.

   June 12, 2016, 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, Orlando, Florida: Omar Mateen shoots and kills 49 people and injures 53 more at a gay bar, the largest mass shooting in U.S. history.

   November 28, 2016, 2016 Ohio State University attack, Ohio, Ohio: A Muslim Somalian student, Abdul Artan who came to the USA as a refugee, intentionally rammed a car into pedestrians on a busy campus sidewalk on Monday morning and then began slashing passers-by with a butcher knife, the authorities said, injuring 11 students and faculty and staff members, and setting off panic at one of the nation’s largest public universities.
   • red-blooded 5.1

     29 January 2017 at 11:24 am

     Chris, there’s been a amore recent study – http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/27/14412420/terrorism-muslims-america-islam-trump – (including 2016) and its author (a Sociology professor from Duke University) has also reviewed any links to the countries on Trump's list:
     "Overall, for as long as Kurzman has done the study, the number of actual terrorist attacks committed by Muslim Americans has been exceptionally small.

     “The 54 fatalities caused by Muslim-American extremists in 2016 brought the total since 9/11 to 123,” Kurzman writes. “More than 240,000 Americans were murdered over the same period.”

     This year, Kurzman did something new. In light of news of a draft executive order that would indefinitely suspend entry to the US from seven Muslim-majority countries — Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somali, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — Kurzman tried to figure out whether immigration from these countries, specifically, posed an special terrorist threat.

     It didn’t. Muslim Americans with a background from these countries were not well-represented among the (very small) ranks of Muslim American terrorists.

     “Since 9/11, only 23 percent of Muslim-Americans involved with violent extremist plots had family backgrounds in these seven countries,” Kurzman writes. “There have been no fatalities in the United States caused by extremists with family backgrounds in these countries.”

     Immigrants of all kinds were actually underrepresented in the ranks of Muslims attracted to extremism. The following charts show the percentage of Muslim Americans from different backgrounds, on the left, and the percentage of Muslim Americans attracted to extremism from each of these backgrounds, on the right. Immigrants are clearly underrepresented…"

     The chart that follows shows that Muslim Americans born in the US make up 19% of the overall Muslim population there and commit 17% of attacks (broadly equivalent). Immigrants make up about 59% of the Muslim population and commit 24% of the attacks. It's converts who seem most likely to attack: 19% of the population, 39% of the attacks. (About 20% of the attacks couldn't be classified, as the origin of the attacker(s) weren't reported.)

     Trump's acting out and stirring up Islamophobia. Surprise, surprise.
   • Barfly 5.2

     29 January 2017 at 11:30 am

     “December 2, 2015, 2015 San Bernardino attack, San Bernardino, California: A Muslim couple opens fire at a Christmas party, leaving fourteen dead.

     June 12, 2016, 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, Orlando, Florida: Omar Mateen shoots and kills 49 people and injures 53 more at a gay bar, the largest mass shooting in U.S. history”

     2 incidents make up 67 of your 75 deaths…..”insert smart remark on statistics here”

     But seriously it seems that those two incidents may make a case for Islamist terrorism being more deadly to americans than “toddlers with guns” and “lightning” but they are still being creamed in the mortality count by BUSES.

     Go Billy Bragg
     • Sabine 5.2.1

       29 January 2017 at 3:24 pm

       both shooters were US American born Muslims.
       should Trump ban US american born Muslims from returning to the US when travelling?

       Cause reasons?
6. Stephanie Rodgers 6

   29 January 2017 at 10:12 am

   The ACLU are live-tweeting a protest at JFK Airport demanding the release of refugees being detained there, including Iraqis who assisted the US forces.
   https://twitter.com/mcohorst/status/825445925069975556

   They have stationed lawyers at major international airports and are advising people not to sign anything without legal advice.
   https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/825443851808669696

   I hope everyone who thought Donald Trump would be a great president because he really cares about the little guy or was going to smash the imperialist system is happy.
   • weka 6.1

     29 January 2017 at 10:53 am

     and how long until we add the people who thought Tr*mp’s administration wouldn’t be that bad? Are we there yet? Because this looks like just the start to me. I hope I am wrong and that even Tr*mpville realise that being a govt running and country is an actual thing.
     • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1

       29 January 2017 at 11:14 am

       Because this looks like just the start to me. I hope I am wrong

       No, you’re not wrong. I’m more wondering which country will have the False Flag pinned upon them.

       It’s all downhill for the next few years or more.
       • weka 6.1.1.1

         29 January 2017 at 11:15 am

         Andre pointed out the difference between the President and the govt below, as well as the role of the courts. Fingers crossed for at least some checks and balances.
   • weka 6.2

     29 January 2017 at 11:13 am

     Michael Moore ‏@MMFlint 2h

     Everybody in NYC area– head to JFK Terminal 4 NOW! Big anti-Trump protest forming out of nowhere! Ppl mobilizing against Trump’s Muslim ban

     Michael Moore ‏@MMFlint 22m22 minutes ago

     If you’re not in NYC, head out to the International arrivals at the nearest airport. If u live in a small town, go to where u protest.

     Michael Moore ‏@MMFlint 21m21 minutes ago

     I’m serious- we need a massive showing right now. Many orgs r joining the call! Let the whole world see we are NOT represented by this bigot

     Michael Moore ‏@MMFlint 11m11 minutes ago

     Facebook Live: My Facebook site – http://facebook.com/MMFlint – is now LIVE from JFK Trump protest…
7. Lara 7

   29 January 2017 at 10:17 am

   Why would anyone want to go to the USA anyway? It’s looking more and more like a police state.

   Canada in contrast looks remarkably civilised.
   • Andre 7.1

     29 January 2017 at 10:20 am

     Try spending four months of every year in a walk-in freezer.
   • weka 7.2

     29 January 2017 at 10:49 am

     “Canada in contrast looks remarkably civilised.”

     Not so civilised if you are native or poor or concerned about climate change 😉
     • Lara 7.2.1

       29 January 2017 at 12:42 pm

       True. Canada has it’s problems, and it’s climate isn’t for those who don’t like the cold.

       It’s still looking a lot better than the USA. If I were a refugee I know which one I’d prefer.
   • DoublePlusGood 7.3

     29 January 2017 at 11:48 am

     Canada were in a total mess until the got rid of Harper. Yes, Trudeau is going a good job, but still lots of unpleasantness lurking in the background of Canadian society.
   • Macro 7.4

     29 January 2017 at 2:03 pm

     In 2014 I visited both Canada and the USA. The receptions at border controls were like chalk and cheese. I will never return to the US, despite having close relations there. I would return to Canada tomorrow.

     ps I gather Canada is to build a wall along the 49th Parallel and have the US pay for it. 😈
8. Carolyn_nth 8

   29 January 2017 at 10:29 am

   Corbyn stands up and tweets out:

   . @Theresa_May, you should have stood up for Britain & our values by condemning @realDonaldTrump’s #MuslimBan and attacks on refugees. Shame

   Although, he probably should reconsider the Britain’s values bit – May, like Thatcher is probably all for re-instating British/English imperialistic values.
   • Poission 8.1

     29 January 2017 at 10:44 am

     Corbyn has negative approval ratings in the year of the Rooster,he is a feather duster.
   • Marcus Morris 8.2

     30 January 2017 at 12:52 pm

     Mrs May is/has just been to Turkey (tying up a one hundred million pound arms deal in the process). While there she extolled the bonds of friendship that have existed between the two “nations” for the past four hundred years. Really! WW1 and Gallipoli have no place in her awareness of history then. Mind you, the one in ten Brits employed in the armaments industry will be delighted. Actually, was there such a thing as a Turkish nation during the time of the Ottoman Empire?
9. weka 9

   29 January 2017 at 10:51 am

   Opinions on whether introducing the ban at no notice is gross incompetence as a govt or that they just don’t care?
   • Andre 9.1

     29 January 2017 at 11:00 am

     It’s an executive action, so it’s on the president not “government” as a whole. If actions like the ACLU suing to overturn it succeed, that’ll be a reflection of the “checks and balances” in government working the way they should. Not that that’s any comfort to those affected in the meantime.

     Given the malice we’ve seen from Trump previously, I suspect it goes further than “don’t care”, he’s actively enjoying trashing people’s lives with this action.
     • weka 9.1.1

       29 January 2017 at 11:11 am

       Re the ‘don’t care’ category, I was thinking as much about about the immigration service and other people in the airports. I think we can assume he doesn’t give a shit about Muslims.
       • Andre 9.1.1.1

         29 January 2017 at 11:23 am

         Like most large organisations, the people working in the immigration services are a mixed bag. Some may feel it doesn’t go far enough and will get a kick out of enforcing it. Some just won’t care either way. But even the ones that think the banning order is wrong will still see it as a legitimate instruction they are required to carry out. There may even be some that feel it’s so wrong they may quit in protest, but I suspect that number will be very small.
         • weka 9.1.1.1.1

           29 January 2017 at 11:26 am

           That makes sense to me too. I was meaning more the thing about not giving anyone notice and that even if Tr*mp doesn’t care about the Muslims being put back on planes, there will be a fair amount of chaos for the airport workers. Or do you think it was more planned than that?
           • Andre 9.1.1.1.1.1

             29 January 2017 at 11:31 am

             I don’t think Trump gave the slightest thought to the downstream chaos it would cause for the people that weren’t the direct targets. I doubt it even occurred to him that it would cause chaos.
             • weka …

               29 January 2017 at 11:49 am

               Ok, that’s what I thought too. Gross incompetence. I look at some of the photos of the military staff around this whole thing and wonder what is going through their heads. We can only hope that there will be individuals willing to put themselves on the line if it comes down to this level of incompetence around nuclear arms. Probably other things too. I bet they’re thinking about it.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 29 January 2017 at 11:55 am

                 See the Time link below.

                 “Any democracy has to be concerned about the kind of civil-military crisis that could arise if its armed forces comes to doubt the lawfulness of the orders its being given,” says Charlie Dunlap, a retired Air Force judge advocate general now teaching at Duke Law School. “You don’t want the military thinking it has to constantly question and second-guess the legality of every order being given by the commander-in-chief.”
                 • weka …

                   29 January 2017 at 12:14 pm

                   Legality, and morality. Then whether the whole place is going to get blown up. Yes, we should be concerned.
             • Wensleydale …

               29 January 2017 at 11:56 am

               He’s a petulant child with the mental agility of a cauliflower. I doubt he understood what was likely to happen, and now that he does (hopefully), his enormous ego won’t permit him to retreat from it.
               • Lara …

                 29 January 2017 at 12:42 pm

                 “the mental agility of a cauliflower”

                 LMFAO

                 almost spit my coffee all over my screen there 🙂
           • AB 9.1.1.1.1.2

             29 January 2017 at 5:11 pm

             I think Trump welcomes the chaos as it provides evidence to his base that something is being done.
             • swordfish …

               29 January 2017 at 9:43 pm

               Precisely. No middle ground, no grey areas.

               To employ a local analogy … Trump’s basically emulating Muldoon – a politically astute polariser who scapegoated minorities and other marginal demographics (aggressively and relentlessly depicted as antithetical to the “Rob’s Mob” “heartland”) in order to continue winning the oh so crucial marginals. All carefully calculated to the utmost degree. Keep both your base and those swing voters who gave you a tiny slither of a winning margin … angry at the “enemy”, enthusiastic about your aggressive response and hence permanently mobilised.

               Total war from day one.

               As the frequently incisive and acerbic Jeffrey St. Clair wrote a few days ago …

               “There will be no apologies, no revisions, no concessions … Trump offers no rhetorical filigrees about unifying the country and healing its divisions. The point is not to reassure, but to enrage.

               The strategy of the Trump presidency is to divide and subdivide, not to unite. Why? Because Trump understands that he is weak and that he is where he is only because his enemies are weaker. So he needs to keep feeding his raging base raw meat, the bloodier the better. Trump wants to agitate both his acolytes and his opposition, to stir up tumult and chaos …

               And my favourite passage:

               “Trump needs enemies the way the Democrats need scapegoats and the scapegoats keep mounting in number: Bernie Sanders, Susan Sarandon, Jill Stein, Julian Assange, Vladimir Putin, James Comey and now Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, who many Hillary diehards blame for legitimizing Trump when he met with him in Mexico City last August.

               ”

               It’s a mistake to underestimate Trump. But all those who’ve convinved themselves that endlessly calling him an “Orange Buffoon” constitutes razor sharp political analysis … will continue to do so.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.2

         29 January 2017 at 11:26 am

         Does the Dept. of Homeland Security operate under similar rules as the military?

         …the military professional’s obligation to disobey is an important check and balance in the execution of policy…

         Dept. of HS oath:

         I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

         President Trump has lots of lawyers to shield him from the legal ramifications. I hope the ACLU go after his hench-men and women too. Make obeying orders a matter of personal security for them.
         • Sabine 9.1.1.2.1

           29 January 2017 at 3:27 pm

           look at this here and tell me how this will go well

           https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/825499613327196160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
           • joe90 9.1.1.2.1.1

             29 January 2017 at 5:47 pm

             Getting the answers they want.

             By contrast, Obama's National Security Memorandum (Feb 13, 2009) https://t.co/YRGxVDxT62— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) January 29, 2017

             And the differences. Reds are deletions. Greens are additions. pic.twitter.com/uf8frXH8vg— Pwn All The Things (@pwnallthethings) January 29, 2017

             https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/825515497630334976/photo/1
           • joe90 9.1.1.2.1.2

             29 January 2017 at 7:00 pm

             Bob Rae is the former premier of Ontario.

             A coup in the making "@DefenseBaron: Trump kicked the Joint Chiefs out of the National Security Council. #military https://t.co/41EghSVTIc"— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) January 29, 2017

             https://twitter.com/BobRae48/status/825557754190376961
   • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2

     29 January 2017 at 11:10 am

     It’s all part of making America grunt again.
     • Psycho Milt 9.2.1

       29 January 2017 at 11:16 am

       Or “Making America grate again”
   • Draco T Bastard 9.3

     29 January 2017 at 11:24 am

     Gross ignorance.

     Trump’s always been in a position to be in charge. A position where he’s told people to do something and doesn’t hear about it until it’s reported back that it’s done. He doesn’t care about the details – that’s what small people are for.

     Things is, he could do that in a private company because all the middle managers would make sure it worked and didn’t upset the customers.

     Do it from his position now where rules are absolute and without a plan of action and you get chaos.
     • Macro 9.3.1

       29 January 2017 at 2:21 pm

       True to a large extent Draco – but even on a smaller scale such as a large company – this sort of dictatorship doesn’t always succeed – and in the chump’s case it probably fails more often than not. We are still not in a position to know just how “successful” this man-child really is as a businessman, because he refuses to release any of those details for public scrutiny. However what we do know is that he has been bankrupted. Many of his casinos do not make a profit, and are awaiting legal actions for money laundering, his golf courses in Scotland have never made a profit, He owes around $750 million to foreign banks, and hardly anyone in the US will lend him money (certainly not Wall Street). I imagine that most of his “empire” is built upon the “never never”, and the funds coming in quickly race out again to pay off loans.
   • Macro 9.4

     29 January 2017 at 3:10 pm

     Both – Gross incompetence by the Trump “administration” and frankly he just doesn’t care. It is not affecting him personally so why would he be concerned?
     Mind you this “executive decree” has made a lot of people happy – the “religious right” many of whom voted for him. These so-called “Christians” form a significant voting minority in the US, and it is for the benefit of these people, that the recent anti-abortion decree and this latest piece of bigotry are directed.
   • emergency mike 9.5

     29 January 2017 at 10:44 pm

     Both, plus gross self-interest.

     As far as Trump is concerned he’s just breaking eggs to make an omelette. He’s a ‘snap-my-fingers-I-want-it-done-now’ manager, subordinates can figure out the how and if they fail, he’ll blame then fire them.

     Plus what AB and swordfish said below, a bit of teething trouble chaos functions as a dog whistle to both Trump’s base and to Trump himself. It shows he’s a man of action who is keeping to his promises and stuff is happening. The lefties get all upset and outraged so that works for Trump fans. Next Trump will say that detractors of this policy are ‘defending the terrorists’, like Key reckoned some were ‘defending the rapists’. He’s a gonna keep ‘merica safe no matter what u whining liberals say.
10. North 10

    29 January 2017 at 11:16 am

    “Yeah well, you know…….give the [unhinged fascist] guy a chance……”.
11. One Anonymous Bloke 11

    29 January 2017 at 11:17 am

    I guess we are going to find out whether “flawed democracy” can survive a fascist leader.

    Hope so, otherwise some of our leaders are going to need a Miklós Horthy moment, and I doubt they’re up to it. Certainly Dr. Mapp seems to think everything is normal. The “Anglo” countries in a grand alliance and so-forth.
12. joe90 12

    29 January 2017 at 12:47 pm

    History, huh

    Gallup, 1938: "Do you think the persecution of the Jews in Europe has been their own fault?" 65% of Americans say entirely or partially yes pic.twitter.com/Sx4WVKsKtw— Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy) January 27, 2017

    Gallup, 1938: "Should we allow a larger number of Jewish exiles from Germany to come to the United States to live?" 72% say no pic.twitter.com/gdbyoyA5a0— Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy) January 27, 2017

    1944: "Do you think the Jews have too much power and influence in this country?" 48% of Americans say yes pic.twitter.com/JDGyi4EmqS— Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy) January 27, 2017

    Americans have, in fact, opposed taking in refugees during the vast majority of crises https://t.co/ccxp9wKbws pic.twitter.com/rfadYL6E5C— Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy) January 27, 2017

    https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/825042312610852865
13. millsy 13

    29 January 2017 at 1:38 pm

    150 years ago it was Irish Catholics.
    • Sabine 13.1

      29 January 2017 at 3:27 pm

      and just some 70 years ago it was European and Russian Jews.

      cause reasons.
14. Stephanie Rodgers 14

    29 January 2017 at 3:21 pm

    ACLU has won an emergency stay against the immigration ban. People who were being deported are literally being taken off planes right now.
    https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825526578952155141
    http://live.reuters.com/Event/Election_2016
    • lprent 14.1

      29 January 2017 at 3:33 pm

      Excellent
      • Stephanie Rodgers 14.1.1

        29 January 2017 at 4:52 pm

        It’s only temporary and only applies to people who were in transit at the time the ban was made.
15. Sabine 15

    29 January 2017 at 3:40 pm

    and its nationawide

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316714-federal-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-ban-nationwide
16. Rosemary McDonald 16

    29 January 2017 at 3:49 pm

    Has anyone thought to paddle over and amend the ….https://www.howtallisthestatueofliberty.org/what-is-the-quote-on-the-statue-of-liberty/ ?
    • Andre 16.1

      29 January 2017 at 3:56 pm

      Samantha Bee repurposed it for the orange “muddled asshole yearning to scream free”.

      In case you missed it when it first came around, https://youtu.be/9ItoQHCgiq8
17. Skeptic 17

    29 January 2017 at 3:55 pm

    Upon reading the headlines on Trumps blanket ban on immigration from selected countries, and the kerfuffle over the US/Mexican wall, and the ongoing ethics and constitutional saga with divestment of his business interests, I think Trump is rapidly build a wall of hurt, both for himself personally and the USA generally.

    The immigration ban will draw reciprocity from nations affected – look for bans on all US citizens in those countries affected, along with condemnation from the UN and just about all other nations. This will have a significant affect on US businesses globally, probably leading to a major recession.

    The “wall” will ultimately be paid for by US citizens with taxes on goods they buy from Mexico. Most MNCs will avoid the import duties by the simple expediency of exporting from Mexico to another country and from there into the USA.

    The ethics committee hearings and suit against Trump on beaching the US Constitution are the two big one. They will be very difficult for Trump to avoid or shut down, because they go to the heart of what’s so very wrong with his administration. His obvious business interests in countries purported with hostile intentions toward the country he now leads, it at best a serious conflict of interests, at worse they are cause for outright treason. The suit filed three days ago may well drag on to the Supreme Court where the “strict constructionist conservative dominance” will be obliged to find against Trump or betray their own fundamental principles.

    All in all, if Trump isn’t impeached earlier through his own stupidity on twitter, he’ll be out within the year due to his refusal to follow the rules.
18. Ovid 18

    29 January 2017 at 4:53 pm

    But you don’t understand, Hillary spoke at Goldman Sachs.
    • joe90 18.1

      29 January 2017 at 5:28 pm

      Her emails!!

      http://www.salon.com/2017/01/27/president-trumps-voters-seem-to-be-fine-with-him-using-a-private-email-poll/
19. Glenn 19

    29 January 2017 at 5:34 pm

    New York City cab drivers turned mounting chaos at John F. Kennedy International Airport into even more of a snarl with a strike to protest President Donald Trump’s crackdown on refugees and support travelers trapped by his executive order.

    As hundreds of protesters packed the streets outside JFK’s Terminal 4, cabbies stopped whisking people from the airport for an hour on Saturday evening, leaving the taxi line empty and a growing number of frantic travelers scrambling to find alternative transportation.

    “We cannot be silent,” the New York Taxi Workers Alliance tweeted. “We go to work
    to welcome people to a land that once welcomed us. We will not be divided.
    NYTWA called on all cabbies, including Uber drivers, to join them.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-york-cabbies-strike-muslim-ban_us_588d2cd0e4b0b065cbbc6512?x8r2n1ksx143rf6r&
20. Steve Wrathall 20

    29 January 2017 at 6:01 pm

    So, at last one western country has woken up and decided that enlightenment principles don’t mean you have to surrender vast swathes of your country to an ideology that says a women is worth half a man, that Jews are the sons of apes and pigs, and that those who don’t follow the ROP can be killed.
    • Macro 20.1

      29 January 2017 at 6:27 pm

      I await the resulting pay equity for women, and the rescinding of the death penalty in the US, as a result of this decree, with anticipation.
      Not so sure about the Jewish population in the US – many of them are already on the pigs back.*
      Thank you Steve for those words of enlightenment and encouragement.

      *

      The consistent richest or second richest ethnicity in America for the past 40 years in terms of average annual salary, with extremely high concentrations in academia and other fields, and today have the highest per capita income of any ethnic group in the United States, at around double the average income of non-Jewish Americans

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews
      • Steve Wrathall 20.1.1

        29 January 2017 at 7:01 pm

        Equal pay for equal work is a legally established fact for decades in almost all Western countries. Actual pay differences are a result of the different choices women make. Contrast that with islamic states where the right of a woman to even leave the house without their male “owner” is something they’ve yet to get their head around.
        • Macro 20.1.1.1

          29 January 2017 at 7:21 pm

          Yes dear.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1.1.2

          29 January 2017 at 7:22 pm

          That’s what you tell yourself. It’s all about the “different” choices people make. Women choosing to be paid less for the same job, for example.

          Get your amygdala checked.
          • Macro 20.1.1.2.1

            29 January 2017 at 9:17 pm

            ” It’s all about the “different” choices people make. Women choosing to be paid less for the same job, for example.”

            Yes I’m sure it is…

            Take doctors and surgeons. Women earn 71 percent of men’s wages — after controlling for age, race, hours and education. Women who are financial specialists make 66 percent of what men in the same occupation earn, and women who are lawyers and judges make 82 percent.

            You would think these women would know better! 😉
    • Morrissey 20.2

      29 January 2017 at 6:32 pm

      Anne, this fool Wrathall is a bigot. He’s not a redneck, he’s a bigot.

      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29012017/#comment-1293240
      • Anne 20.2.1

        29 January 2017 at 6:48 pm

        He’s both and worse… he’s a sociopath, a megalomaniac and a sexist buffoon. And if Jonathan Pie is to be believed… he has a skull full of fetid shit. 👿

        Oops… I thought you were talking about Trump.
      • Steve Wrathall 20.2.2

        29 January 2017 at 6:51 pm

        Ah yes. Roll out the labels. Deplorable, bigot, racist, …. worked so well in defeating Brexit and Trump didn’t it? There is nothing bigoted about loving liberal values (rights of women, gays, blasphemers & apostates) and being horrified by the wholesale importation of the most regressive ideology on the planet, as is happening in Europe.
        • Psycho Milt 20.2.2.1

          29 January 2017 at 6:57 pm

          I’m no lover of Islam myself, but you do seem like a genuine bigot.
          • Steve Wrathall 20.2.2.1.1

            29 January 2017 at 7:10 pm

            Really? Then please explain why importation of the most regressive ideology on the planet shouldn’t be seriously restricted? If muslims really believe in democracy, liberal values, and open society, etc, why aren’t they fighting for that in their own countries. It’s a serious question. If the majority of e.g. Syrians are freedom lovers, why wasn’t Assad easily overthown in 2011, and a liberal democracy established? The answer isn’t very difficult isn’t it? Islam is incompatible with democracy. So why should democracies allow islam in?
            • One Anonymous Bloke 20.2.2.1.1.1

              29 January 2017 at 7:16 pm

              The Republican Party is incompatible with democracy. So why should democracies allow Republicans in?
            • DeadSmurf 20.2.2.1.1.2

              29 January 2017 at 7:17 pm

              Assad started to shoot his own people amid a brutal crackdown. Going to the streets against a brutal dictator is pretty brave.
              • Steve Wrathall …

                29 January 2017 at 7:31 pm

                But the question is, why so many of these “brutal dictators” are concentrated in parts of the world that have been subjected to centuries of cultural influence from the islamist ideology. Bad ideas have bad consequences. Why would free countries want to end up like them?
                • DeadSmurf …

                  29 January 2017 at 9:31 pm

                  In the case of Iran and Iraq, western countries were pretty influential in putting the dictators in power or keeping them there. But there are, or have been dictators, in most parts of the world from Africa to the Americas and even Europe. Using religion as a way to judge people is pretty repugnant.
            • Psycho Milt 20.2.2.1.1.3

              29 January 2017 at 7:53 pm

              Then please explain why importation of the most regressive ideology on the planet shouldn’t be seriously restricted?

              1. First and foremost, because discriminating against people on the basis of ideology or religion is wrong, and is therefore against the law in places that care about such things. Personally I think Peter Thiel is an adherent of a loathsome ideology, but that isn’t a reason why he should be denied NZ citizenship (the fact he doesn’t meet the criteria ought to be enough).

              2. It ought to be “restricted,” sure, and generally is – people whose only passport is that of a Muslim country can usually reel you off a bunch of stories about visa restrictions and obnoxious immigration officials that are unknown to people like us. Just slapping an outright ban on entire countries though is a recipe for confusion and chaos, and has delivered (uh, duh-uh) confusion and chaos.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 20.2.2.2

          29 January 2017 at 7:04 pm

          Objectivism, Libertarian drivel, Randist gobshite, call it what you will, it came to Europe long before this recent wave of refugees.
          • Steve Wrathall 20.2.2.2.1

            29 January 2017 at 7:16 pm

            A wave of refugees that has seen mass sexual assaults on German women, truck attacks on citizens enjoying traditional festivities, and mass murder as we saw in Paris, with the perpetrators subsequently able to hide out for months in the muslim no-go areas of Brussels. Can you blame America for deciding on a different way than Europe’s suicidal course?
            • One Anonymous Bloke 20.2.2.2.1.1

              29 January 2017 at 7:19 pm

              So they elected a violent serial rapist. Your lip service to liberty doesn’t disguise your support for him, either.
              • Steve Wrathall …

                29 January 2017 at 7:32 pm

                Don’t you talk about Bill Clinton like that!
                • HDCAFriendlyTroll …

                  30 January 2017 at 8:55 am

                  +100
    • emergency mike 20.3

      29 January 2017 at 10:17 pm

      Uh huh, so which “vast swathes” exactly of the USA do you believe were about to be surrendered to Islamic fundamentalism?
21. joe90 21

    29 January 2017 at 6:32 pm

    A un-elected and un-vetted man who wants to burn it down gets to make the rules.

    Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen — did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.
    The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President’s inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html
    • joe90 21.1

      29 January 2017 at 6:43 pm

      Well thought out plan there fellas.

      Trump's immigration order is stopping airline crew with green cards from traveling to the U.S. https://t.co/YGt1gmcmqZ— Newsweek (@Newsweek) January 29, 2017

      http://europe.newsweek.com/trump-muslim-ban-green-card-passport-airlines-travel-549755?rm=eu
    • joe90 21.2

      29 January 2017 at 6:56 pm

      15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, 1 was from Egypt, 2 were from the UAE and 1 was from Lebanon – all countries unaffected by the ban.
      • Steve Wrathall 21.2.1

        29 January 2017 at 7:19 pm

        Right, so your criticism of Trump’s ban is that it doesn’t go far enough?
        • Macro 21.2.1.1

          29 January 2017 at 7:23 pm

          Now ask yourself “Why?”
          Wouldn’t have anything to do with business interests by any chance?
          • Glenn 21.2.1.1.1

            29 January 2017 at 7:51 pm

            A draft proposal of an executive order obtained by Bloomberg News reportedly shows that Trump is poised to suspend all entry to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.

            Notably missing from the blacklist, however, are several Muslim-majority countries where Trump has business dealings, according to Bloomberg.

            The news organization has put together a map of the proposed suspensions, with the Muslim-majority countries where Trump has business interests—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan—rendered in yellow.

            http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/donald-trump-muslim-immigration-ban-conflict/

            And of course none of the countries where he had business interests was affected.
            • Macro 21.2.1.1.1.1

              29 January 2017 at 9:03 pm

              Yes – I am aware of this – I was just wondering if Steve was? 🙂
              I notice he hasn’t bothered to reply…
        • Andre 21.2.1.2

          29 January 2017 at 7:27 pm

          It illustrates how poorly thought out the ban is – of all the terrorist attacks used by demagogues to frighten the US, this travel ban would have prevented precisely zero of them.

          However, interestingly, the countries where terrorists have been shown to originate from are exempt from the ban and happen to also have Trump interests in them (none of the banned countries are host to Trump interests).
          • joe90 21.2.1.2.1

            29 January 2017 at 7:30 pm

            Surprise surprise…..

            Rudy Giuliani says on Fox that Trump called him and said, "I want to do a #MuslimBan. How do I do it legally?"— Kashmir Hill (@kashhill) January 29, 2017

            https://twitter.com/kashhill/status/825574061753278464
          • Carolyn_nth 21.2.1.2.2

            29 January 2017 at 7:44 pm

            Yeah, but it’s red meat to voters who voted Trump because too many Muslims.

            As with the election, Trump gets loads of fact-based opposition to his outrageous words and acts, gets extra publicity, and gains enough votes from those that buy the sentiment, to gain/stay in power.

            Attacking the discourse (“Muslims are terrorists”) is as (or more) important as attacking the irrationality. Also important to promote an alternative positive narrative.
            • Andre 21.2.1.2.2.1

              29 January 2017 at 7:50 pm

              I dunno, it’s a risk to Trump if it takes hold that he’s exempted the actual terrorists because he’s got businesses in the countries they come from.
            • Morrissey 21.2.1.2.2.2

              29 January 2017 at 8:42 pm

              He didn’t get enough votes. He got more than three million votes less than Hillary Clinton. The Republicans rorted the system, like they did in 2000 and 2004, this time again blocking hundreds of thousands of black and Latino voters in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona….

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-carolina-voter-id_us_579b8862e4b08a8e8b5de534
22. joe90 22

    29 January 2017 at 7:19 pm

    The fix is in.

    IMPORTANT. Donald Trump filed with @FEC for 2020 reelection on January 20th, 2017. This is major for several reasons. /1 pic.twitter.com/t8y5MJZHyC— The Resisterhood (@resisterhood) January 28, 2017

    […]

    Because he's acting as Trump the candidate, not Trump the president. Different rules apply. /4— The Resisterhood (@resisterhood) January 28, 2017

    Even more importantly – completely changes how non profits can handle him. 501c3's cannot "campaign" or risk losing nonprofit status. /5— The Resisterhood (@resisterhood) January 28, 2017

    It means they can't speak negatively about him. Imagine @PPact having to convey risk to #PlannedParenthood w/ limits on how to address. /6— The Resisterhood (@resisterhood) January 28, 2017

    […]

    Diabolical maneuvering to skirt all conventional forms of #resistance. Norms don't matter; it's all about finding new ways to silence us /10— The Resisterhood (@resisterhood) January 28, 2017

    https://twitter.com/resisterhood/status/825435325535252480
23. Steve Wrathall 23

    29 January 2017 at 7:47 pm

    Oh BTW. 16 countries, including 6 of the 7 on Trump’s ban, ban Israelis. Cue Standard outrage…. (crickets chirping)
    • adam 23.1

      29 January 2017 at 8:16 pm

      Yeap at travel bans are evil.
    • Morrissey 23.2

      29 January 2017 at 8:36 pm

      http://mattmonroeastronaut.com/images/idiot.png
24. Sabine 24

    29 January 2017 at 8:35 pm

    https://twitter.com/resisterhood/status/825435325535252480

    Trump filed his formal announcement of seeking the candidacy for 2020.

    He is now ‘officially campaigning’ and thus a lot of things can’t be done anymore.

    this little twitter thing is an interesting read.

    but yeah, He will make ‘America’ great again. Sure thing.
    • Morrissey 24.1

      29 January 2017 at 8:46 pm

      He’ll be in prison by then. If he’s not in prison, he’ll look something like this….

      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/46/d8/2c/46d82ce4b3723d0c18d56e3dfa8250ff.jpg
      • Sabine 24.1.1

        29 January 2017 at 10:39 pm

        why? because the Tea Party that has overtaken the Republican Party are going to impeach him?
        oh yeah, surely they will. And surely Wikileaks will find some ’emails’ to get the believers to stop believing that if they just deport all the others, get the women barefeet and pregnant into the kitchen and build a fucking wall all is well.

        seriously. What ever.
        • Morrissey 24.1.1.1

          30 January 2017 at 8:02 am

          why? because the Tea Party that has overtaken the Republican Party are going to impeach him?

          If the Democrats were united and even slightly competent, Trump would be gone by the end of February. But I have not the slightest faith they have the will or the character required to stand up to the ferocity of this neo-fascist onslaught.

          And surely Wikileaks will find some ’emails’ to get the believers to stop believing that if they just deport all the others, get the women barefeet and pregnant into the kitchen and build a fucking wall all is well.

          You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about WikiLeaks. Why? And why have you put the word “emails” in scare quotes? Is it to imply that the incriminating emails by and to Hillary Clinton that they revealed to the public were not real?

          seriously. What ever.

          Maybe that sounds clever in German.
          • One Anonymous Bloke 24.1.1.1.1

            30 January 2017 at 9:14 am

            incriminating

            [citation needed]
            • Morrissey 24.1.1.1.1.1

              30 January 2017 at 9:21 am

              http://www.alternet.org/environment/hillary-clinton-tried-push-fracking-other-nations-when-she-was-secretary-state-new
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                30 January 2017 at 9:33 am

                Totes incriminating, if fracking were actually criminal.
                • Morrissey …

                  30 January 2017 at 9:48 am

                  It is. it violates virtually every law in the United States. That’s why she and her supporters don’t like it when troublesome people like lawyers and environmentalists point that out.
                  • Andre …

                    30 January 2017 at 9:55 am

                    Can you name even a couple of laws Clinton’s fracking push violated? Preferably the most serious violations. Coz the linked article didn’t even hint that Clinton’s actions might be illegal.
                    • Morrissey …

                      30 January 2017 at 10:07 am

                      Fracking Goes on Trial for Human Rights Violations
                      The respected judges of the Peoples’ Permanent Tribunal will collect the facts and reach a precedent-setting decision.
                      by Kathleen Dean Moore, Truthout, November 18, 2015

                      As convoys of heavy trucks carry fracking equipment into new oil fields in neighborhoods and wildlands around the world, an alliance of human rights organizations is making plans to put the entire practice of hydraulic fracturing on trial. The court is the Permanent People’s Tribunal, a descendant of the Vietnam War-era International War Crimes Tribunal. The Peoples’ Tribunal is a branch of no government on Earth. It has no power of enforcement. It has no army, no prison, no sheriff.

                      So what’s the point?

                      The point is that it matters to tell the truth in a public place. It matters to affirm universal standards of right and wrong, to clearly say, “There are things that ethical people do not do to one another and to the Earth.”

                      It matters especially when international and national justice systems, even in purported democracies, are seemingly incapable of protecting people and the commons – air, water, fertile soil, stable climate and all the other necessary conditions for the exercise of basic human rights. It is especially important when transnational corporations are allowed to write the laws that regulate their own actions, making their transgressions effectively “legal,” no matter how outrageous.

                      Under those circumstances, “People themselves must re-imagine, occupy and appropriate the legal process to actively defend their rights,” according to Tribunal documents. The people themselves, writes Jayan Nayar, lecturer in law at the University of Warwick, must create “a public record of the truth – and of the crime of denial.”

                      There are two kinds of truths in question when it comes to fracking. The first are factual, having to do with health, geology and chemistry. What are the effects of the explosive extraction of gas and oil on human and ecological thriving? Grassroots organizations around the globe are making a powerful case: Fracking is an essentially harmful practice.

                      Read more….
                      http://www.alternet.org/fracking/fracking-goes-trial-human-rights-violations
                  • One Anonymous Bloke …

                    30 January 2017 at 10:09 am

                    For a more balanced view, try Gavin Schmidt:

                    Another frequent framing is the false dichotomy. Apparently, natural gas must either be perfect solve-all or worse than useless (see for instance, Keith Kloor’s take). One would think that the overwhelming consensus that there are no panaceas for decarbonising our energy supply might have at least started to make a little impact on the media. Any real policy initiative will have complex effects, and while scientists can certainly help quantify them, nothing at the scale we require is going to be completely neutral in all particulars – and the media should stop expecting it to be so. Since there will always be people who can be portrayed as having taken a black/white position on some issue, it is all too easy to frame any new result as undermining some over-optimistic idealist, which unfortunately buries the conversation related to the nuances of real issues.

                    Fracking Methane.

                    I guess he’s incriminated too.
                    • Morrissey …

                      30 January 2017 at 10:10 am

                      “A more balanced view”? Your anti-science fanaticism is showing, my friend.

                      Haven’t you got a Flat Earth Society meeting to get to?
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      30 January 2017 at 10:16 am

                      In summation, the incriminating evidence you presented fell over at the touch of a feather and now you’re calling names.

                      Hyperbole, red herrings, ad hominem arguments; check your skin, you may be turning orange, my friend.
          • Sabine 24.1.1.1.2

            30 January 2017 at 2:30 pm

            the democrats have lost the election.

            full stop. no matter if you or anyone else finds them good enough, pur enough, left enough or what ever bullsthit reasons they need to give themselves to not vote.

            Without support from the ‘Republicans’ nothing will get done.

            so yeah, sersioulsy what ever.

            and in german that would be Was immer dich gluecklich macht.
        • Macro 24.1.1.2

          30 January 2017 at 9:56 am

          Actually it’s not the Tea Party, or the Republicans, or for that matter the Democrats who get to impeach a President. That duty is reserved for The House of Representatives. And the decision to Impeach a President obviously requires a majority of those representatives. The fact is, that if Trump upsets enough of them – and he has already rattled the cages of Senators McCain and Graham and a number of other Republicans who do control the House, (they call this travel ban a “self inflicted wound” increasing the likelihood of further terrorist attacks on Americans and American targets) – and the Democrats are unlikely to hold back – then we may well see an impeachment.
          • Andre 24.1.1.2.1

            30 January 2017 at 10:02 am

            Erm, nobody loves a pedant, but impeachment gets voted on in the House of Representatives (where a majority is enough) where senators don’t get a vote. But the Senate then has to vote for a conviction by a 2/3 majority to actually remove the president.
            • Macro 24.1.1.2.1.1

              30 January 2017 at 11:38 am

              Exactly.
              The point I was trying to make above was that it wasn’t just the Tea Party or any other group who control the impeachment process.
              The Trump administration on the other hand have obviously been distancing themselves from the establishment. Many of these dictatorial decrees are ill conceived, with little thought to the consequences both domestically and internationally, and are obviously brain farts from the small group of “advisors” Trump has now surrounded himself with at the White House.
              He is rapidly getting himself off-side with not only Democrats but also Republicans and not all Republican representatives represent the alt right or Tea Party. They have their own domestic constitutions to consider.
              Trump is attempting to over ride the law makers – and they won’t take kindly to that.
              • Sabine …

                30 January 2017 at 4:22 pm

                well i guess that so far the only ones still identifying as Republicans are McCain and Lindsay Graham.

                For what its worth the Senate is held by the Republicans and so is Congress.

                and then you have Pence, and if anyone thinks Pence would do anything different? I have a some bridges somewhere to sell.

                This is an intersting read into the ‘evangelic’ vote of Trump.

                https://www.autostraddle.com/i-was-trained-for-the-culture-wars-in-home-school-awaiting-someone-like-mike-pence-as-a-messiah-367057/
                • Macro …

                  30 January 2017 at 6:34 pm

                  Yes I’m well aware of the horrors of Pence….
                  And yes – he would most likely continue the devastation of liberties so hard won. However, there is one thing in his favour – he actually knows what governance is about. I believe he would be less of a dictator and a tyrant, and although his policies may parallel Trump’s to some extent they would be more coherent and “rational”.
                  The lesser of two evils.
                  Yes the Senate and the House are controlled by the GOP, but unlike NZ there are no whips, the congressmen act primarily for their constituencies and their own – dare I say it – political advantage. If they see their power being stripped from them by this relentless series of presidential decrees – many with little thought to the actual consequences – they won’t be sitting idly by.
                  • Sacha …

                    30 January 2017 at 6:46 pm

                    When the Republican leadership decide Chump has become more trouble than he’s worth, they will replace him with another pen-holder. If he avoids other fates for that long.
    • joe90 24.2

      30 January 2017 at 7:27 am

      Candidate Trump spruiking for cash.

      .

      Donald Trump’s presidency is under attack from the crooked media – that was the bizarre message beamed into millions of homes last night, urging supporters to call a phone number to help.

      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/called-creepy-defend-donald-trump-9716565
25. Tanz 25

    30 January 2017 at 1:23 am

    Making America safe, what is wrong with that. Trump is the best thing to happen for a long time, the tide is turning.
    • Morrissey 25.1

      30 January 2017 at 8:04 am

      http://m.memegen.com/7jzymx.jpg
    • Macro 25.2

      30 January 2017 at 1:35 pm

      And how, dear Tanz, will this ban make the US safe?

      two prominent Republican senators broke with the president over his order, warning that it betrayed American values by turning away refugees and green-card holders.

      “Such a hasty process risks harmful results,” John McCain and Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement. “We fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.”

      In an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation, McCain said that the order “in some areas will give Isis some more propaganda”.

      Now I’m no lover of John McCain – but even he can see stupidity of stirring up a hornet’s nest.

      Bear in mind these facts:
      Between 2004 and 2013 – 80 Americans were killed in terrorist attacks. (this does not include Americans in Combat zones such as Afghanistan) Of those – only 36 were killed in terrorist attacks in the US.

      https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf
26. Henry Filth 26

    30 January 2017 at 5:32 am

    I’d always thought that the point of the American Revolution was to stop the man at the top make random arbitrary rules whenever he felt the urge.
    • Macro 26.1

      30 January 2017 at 6:36 pm

      Exactly!
      I wonder why Trump is so keen to visit the Queen?
      Get a few tips maybe?
27. HDCAFriendlyTroll 27

    30 January 2017 at 8:54 am

    A bit of sanity:

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

    So, what did Trump do? Did he implement his promised Muslim ban? No, far from it. He backed down dramatically from his campaign promises and instead signed an executive order dominated mainly by moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones.

    Let’s analyze the key provisions, separate the fact from the hysteria, and introduce just a bit of historical perspective. First, the order temporarily halts refugee admissions for 120 days to improve the vetting process, then caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year. Outrageous, right? Not so fast. Before 2016, when Obama dramatically ramped up refugee admissions, Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms…

    Indeed, given the terrible recent track record of completed and attempted terror attacks by Muslim immigrants, it’s clear that our current approach is inadequate to control the threat. Unless we want to simply accept Muslim immigrant terror as a fact of American life, a short-term ban on entry from problematic countries combined with a systematic review of our security procedures is both reasonable and prudent.

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

    So what’s the problem?
    • Andre 27.1

      30 January 2017 at 9:05 am

      Fact: none of the perpetrators of terror attacks that killed US citizens on US soil in recent years would have been stopped by this ban.

      Fact: the countries of origin for the terrorists that killed US citizens on US soil are exempted from the ban

      Fact: Trump has no known business interests in the countries affected by the ban.

      Fact: Trump is known to have business interests in countries exempt from the ban that have supplied terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt…

      http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/25/14383316/trump-muslim-ban-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order

      http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/28/14425504/trump-refugee-travel-ban-business-countries
    • One Anonymous Bloke 27.2

      30 January 2017 at 9:11 am

      No problems apart from the moral and legal issues. And the lies. If Kim Kardashian can get the statistics right I don’t see why the National Review can’t. Unless they’re right wing bigots or something, in which case lying is their thing.
    • Andre 27.3

      30 January 2017 at 9:33 am

      Glenn Greenwald’s explanation of the problem.

      https://theintercept.com/2017/01/28/trumps-muslim-ban-is-culmination-of-war-on-terror-mentality-but-still-uniquely-shameful/
28. Psycho Milt 28

    30 January 2017 at 9:21 am

    What Andre said. Also:

    Iran isn’t a “Jihadist conflict zone.”

    Iraq only is one due to actions of the US government, which therefore bears a moral responsibility for looking after the refugees.

    Trump’s attempts at government by decree have resulted in chaos at airports and people with valid US visas being detained or removed from aircraft. It’s a clusterfuck and international relations disaster entirely of the orange blowhard’s making.
29. Andre 29

    30 January 2017 at 12:41 pm

    Interesting comment that maybe Bannon set it all up to promote a maximum shitstorm to play to his base. In which case the response maybe should be to emphasise that no terrorists have come from the banned countries (and Trump doesn’t have businesses there), but the countries terrorists have come from are exempt (and Trump has businesses in those countries).

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/trumps-immigration-fiasco-might-be-more-premeditated-we-think
30. joe90 30

    30 January 2017 at 1:14 pm

    While #StopPresidentBannon is trending here are a some of his worst.

    https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-worst-headlines/212467
31. HDCAFriendlyTroll 31

    30 January 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Statement by the world’s greatest president since Reagan, Donald Trump, on “extreme vetting”:

    https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158567643610725

    Donald J. Trump
    1 hr ·
    Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting
    “America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave.
    We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.
    This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. 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.
    I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”

    Please try not to be too awed.
    • McFlock 31.1

      30 January 2017 at 2:29 pm

      Gotta love your post-truth alt-fact bullshit.

      Obama beefed up background checks after an Iraqi refugee turned out to have planted/made a roadside bomb back in Iraq. Tougher checks meant that there was a backlog created in the visas being processed at the time, although applications were never halted. There was never a ban, just slower processing before new systems could be bedded in.

      Trump just banned people at the border, whether they’d started or completed the process. Apparently this is for three months.

      “Awed” isn’t the word for it.
    • Psycho Milt 31.2

      30 January 2017 at 2:42 pm

      Well, it’s “similar” in the sense that competent administration and incompetent administration are both administration, but that’s not saying much. Also, Obama didn’t base the exclusion on protecting his business interests, didn’t create chaos and egregious examples of injustice at US airports and didn’t get slapped down by a federal judge within a day, but yeah, apart from all those things the similarity is uncanny.
    • joe90 31.3

      30 January 2017 at 3:42 pm

      We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.

      Nope, lying liar lies. There was never any ban put in place,

      The previous administration slowed immigration from Iraq when they initiated tougher background check.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131
      • HDCAFriendlyTroll 31.3.1

        30 January 2017 at 3:53 pm

        “Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have *mistakenly* been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

        Yeah, that definitely supports your argument.
        • joe90 31.3.1.1

          30 January 2017 at 4:00 pm

          Obama slowing the refugee program didn’t impact green card holders or anyone with a visa and didn’t affect refugees who had already gone through the vetting process.
32. joe90 32

    30 January 2017 at 5:00 pm

    So, not a country of laws.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-immigration-ban-still-place-despite-court-ruling-says-dhs-n713696
    • McFlock 32.1

      30 January 2017 at 5:25 pm

      Holy shit.

      I mean, that level of contempt could unhang the Supreme Court.
      • joe90 32.1.1

        30 January 2017 at 5:44 pm

        We were only following orders probably won’t cut it.
33. joe90 33

    30 January 2017 at 8:07 pm

    Hertling’s a former commander of US forces in Iraq.

    Received 3 msgs today from Iraqi leaders (Cols and Gens) who asked: "Why is this happening, we are fighting ISIS too! This will help them!" https://t.co/tPYbCPcmoe— Mark Hertling (@MarkHertling) January 30, 2017

    https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/825880355404001281

Links to post

1. Then hope « The Standard: posted on 31 January 2017 at 6:21 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS