January 29, 2017

"White House Official, in Reversal, Says Green Card Holders Won’t Be Barred."

Good.

Here's how it looks on the front page of the NYT:

293 comments:

1 – 200 of 293   Newer›   Newest»
Michael K said...

Thousands of green cards have vanished during the Obama administration.

rcocean said...

Were they ever really banned? Or was that the MSM Jumping to conclusions - as always?

I wonder how many Americans have to be killed by "Green card holders" and "Refugees" before we stop with the tears and hair-pulling over restricting a few people from coming here.

rcocean said...

Judging by "Memorandum" the left, the MSM, and establishment are going nuts over this issue. I doubt many average Americans really care, and those who do, probably support Trump.

Trump is putting the Republicans in a good position. In 2018 they can run as the party that wanted to put America First, and the Democrats can run as the party of Muslims terrorists and illegal aliens.

HT said...

From the article:

"A top White House official appeared to reverse a key part of President Trump’s immigration order on Sunday, saying that people from the affected countries who hold green cards will not be prevented from returning to the United States.

"But the official, Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, also said that border agents had “discretionary authority” to detain and question suspicious travelers from certain countries. That statement seemed to add to the uncertainty over how the executive order will be interpreted and enforced in the days ahead."

rcocean said...

Why are these refugees trying to get into the USA? Isn't the USA now ruled by Trump-Hitler?

tcrosse said...

It looks like Trump the negotiator just gave up the sleeves from his vest. The Opposition can feel that they forced him to back down, but the moratorium remains in place.

Birkel said...

The MSM could not wait to beclown themselves. Althouse says good. I agree.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Appeared to reverse" something that never was is effect to begin with. The Left suckers itself again.

Chuck said...

Charles C.W. Cooke of the National Review was right...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444372/trumps-executive-order-covers-green-cards-why

Big Mike said...

The next thing Trump needs to do is to point a finger at some shnook in Homeland Security who was responsible for including green card holders in the ban and make his or her life a miserable Hell.

Christopher Souza said...

The headline is entirely fair.

"Were they ever really banned? Or was that the MSM Jumping to conclusions - as always?"

Of course refugees have been banned. Have you read the order?

"I wonder how many Americans have to be killed by "Green card holders" and "Refugees" before we stop with the tears and hair-pulling over restricting a few people from coming here."

So far, zero Americans have been killed by refugees since 1975 and zero have been killed by green card holders since 2001.

I don't know what number would make me support a ban, but it definitely needs to be greater than zero.

David Begley said...

Is it possible that green card holders travel to Ihose seven countries and return as terrorists? It has already happened many times.

Birkel said...

In which Charles C.W. Cooke gets taken by press accounts that were inaccurate and Chuck links approvingly.

EDH said...

Notice "Full Executive Order Text" is behind NYT paywall; "President Trump’s Immigration Order, Annotated" (and edited) by the NYT isn't behind the paywall.

Notice, the NYT's Annotation, published yesterday, says nothing about Green Card holders being banned. So how's it a "reversal" if the NYT didn't point point out yesterday that Green Card holders were banned?

NYT Sidebar:

Are you affected by President Trump’s executive order on immigration — or know someone who is? If you have information, please contact us at immigration@nytimes.com.

Google search: "Are you affected by President Obama's executive order"

No results found for "Are you affected by President Obama's executive order".

Kevin said...

As Eleanor predicted in the previous thread: "As far as the green card thing goes, Trump always overshoots what he wants. It's part of being a good negotiator. Everyone gets all upset about folks with green cards not being admitted. Trump backs down on that, the non-green card holders get put on a plane and sent back to where they came from, and the left pats itself on the back for "beating Trump". He laughs because he never intended to deny them re-entry in the first place."

Christopher Souza said...

"Is it possible that green card holders travel to Ihose seven countries and return as terrorists? It has already happened many times."

Anything is possible. It's possible any immigrant, at any time, could be a terrorist. It's possible that a natural born citizen could travel abroad and come back as a terrorist.

Obviously the common sense solution is to ban all immigration and air travel until we figure out what's going on.

And the Internet, too. Most terrorists in the US are radicalized online, so we need to ban the Internet.

Or conservatives could actually start supporting small government and the free market, and oppose irrational fear-based bans on travel and immigration.

Nah. Fear is more fun. This order gives all the satisfaction of feeling like you're doing something to solve the problem, without actually having to do anything to solve the problem.

rcocean said...

"Of course refugees have been banned. Have you read the order?"

I was referring to the so-called reversal on green card holders - which was in the blog post. Dummy.

Kevin said...

"Are you affected by President Trump’s executive order on immigration — or know someone who is? If you have information, please contact us at immigration@nytimes.com."

Shouldn't all Americans write in saying they are now safer from Islamic Terrorists?

Hagar said...

200 odd travelers caught in bureaucratic snafus on the first day of a major change in immigration enforcement directives do not amount to "widespread confusion and chaos."

Seeing Red said...

My friend has had a green card for 40 years.

His nose got out of joint after 9/11 cos when he came back in the country, since he wasn't an American citizen, he had to go thru the other line cos he had a green card. It wasn't line that before.

To keep the peace I didn't say anything.

But if you want the privilege, become a citizen. His wife and children are.

rcocean said...

Tump tweet: Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!

NYT: Christian Leaders Denounce Trump’s Plan to Favor Christian Immigrants.

Thanks brothers in Christ!

David Begley said...

Christopher Souza

See response to Maggie Haberman of the NYT regarding non-US born terrorists: San Bernardino, Boston bombers, Times Square bomber, underwear bomber, Ohio State attacker, Chattanooga shooter, etc.

It was a trick question by me. Sorry.

Christopher Souza said...

rcocean,

My bad. But yes, according to the State Dept green card holders were included in the ban.

Kevin: "Shouldn't all Americans write in saying they are now safer from Islamic Terrorists?"

No, because we're not. Obviously. National security experts--on both sides of the aisle--have been stating that a ban like this will do nothing to make us safer since Trump first floated it. It's only going to fuel radicalization and strengthen ISIS' narrative that there is no place for Muslims in the West. It has already gotten us condemned by our allies. Our Muslim interpreters and other allies will be less willing to help us. All of these were obvious outcomes. Why would any American not thinking with their lizard brain think something this stupid would actually make us safer?

Lyle said...

What if a Salafist has a green card? It might be good to keep them out of the country.

I actually know a Iranian woman and her 10 year old son who are worried about traveling to Sweden in a few weeks. I have advised them to speak to a U.S. consular official or wait the 90 days. They came to the U.S. from Sweden for work related reasons. The woman is a medical research scientist. The woman is a dual Swedish/EU/Iranian national and would be barred from coming back into the country, if I understand the EO correctly. I am not sure if her son has dual citizenship. Neither are American citizens. Cool people and you couldn't tell if the ten year old wasn't American.

Seeing Red said...

All DJT had to do was point out the errors made in green card distribution and the recent loss of 50k was it passports from an African country?

While it is disruptive, and we are sorry about that, you can understand why we need to check.

Birkel said...

Christopher Souza said... "It's possible any immigrant, at any time, could be a terrorist."

Do you even PURPLE ELEPHANT, dude?

traditionalguy said...

Scott Adams predicted this. It is done for the perception of the direction Trump is moving towards the milder discipline after doing all he could. Nice work, El Persuader.

Achilles said...

Blogger Christopher Souza said...

"So far, zero Americans have been killed by refugees since 1975 and zero have been killed by green card holders since 2001.

I don't know what number would make me support a ban, but it definitely needs to be greater than zero."

This is statistically impossible and an obvious lie. Even the most peaceful population larger than 1000 people has killed someone.

This is why you lost and why you will continue to lose.

Paco Wové said...

"zero Americans have been killed ... by green card holders since 2001."

Tashfeen Malik – green card holder, no?

Earnest Prole said...

It's a win-win. Trump can say he's vigorously protecting American security, and the opposition can say it's vigorously defending Americans' civil liberties. And since we all value security and civil liberties, we can all be happy with Trump and the opposition. Without a right wing and a left wing, the plane will crash.

Fernandinande said...

Hagar said...
200 odd travelers caught in bureaucratic snafus on the first day of a major change in immigration enforcement directives do not amount to "widespread confusion and chaos."


That was the headline at the Formicidae Times after I poked the hill with a stick.

Lyle said...

I disagree with the idea that the EO will fuel radicalization or that Trump is a frontman for ISIS. Violent Islamists create themselves; we do not create them. It's like saying Churchill's anti-Nazi views fueled Nazism, or anti-Communist rhetoric fueled Stalinism.

FullMoon said...

Christopher Souza said... [hush]​[hide comment]

"Is it possible that green card holders travel to Ihose seven countries and return as terrorists? It has already happened many times."

Anything is possible. It's possible any immigrant, at any time, could be a terrorist. It's possible that a natural born citizen could travel abroad and come back as a terrorist.

Obviously the common sense solution is to ban all immigration and air travel until we figure out what's going on.

And the Internet, too. Most terrorists in the US are radicalized online, so we need to ban the Internet.


Obviously, you have some good ideas for starters. Next step is to round up all Muslims and relocate them until the war is over. Confiscate their property. I believe there is precedent.

Christopher Souza said...

David,

Point taken on San Bernadino and Ohio State. The Boston bombers and Chattanooga attacker were citizens. Times Square plotter and underwear bomber were stopped. I don't see how any of these justify a refugee ban.

Christopher Souza said...

Full moon, thanks for proving my point.

Jay Elink said...

" It's only going to fuel radicalization and strengthen ISIS' narrative that there is no place for Muslims in the West. "

Funny, Muslims don't think WE have a place in THEIR world: do you understand what Dar Al Harb means?

And if we convince Muslims there's no place for them here---that's a win-win.

Christopher Souza said...

That's a pretty big generalization of 2 billion people, Jay.

It's sad that you and ISIS share the same view, that Muslims can't coexist with us. I know this isn't true, since I have Muslim friends. Do you? Do you know any Muslims personally?

I wouldn't see my Muslim friends being forced out of the country as a "win-win."

Drago said...

Lyle: "I disagree with the idea that the EO will fuel radicalization or that Trump is a frontman for ISIS. Violent Islamists create themselves; we do not create them. It's like saying Churchill's anti-Nazi views fueled Nazism, or anti-Communist rhetoric fueled Stalinism"

Oddly enough those positions were taken in the past an not so distant past.

FullMoon said...

Trump will explain this is not a loss. If it looks like a reversal, the usual suspects will believe disrupting the lives of their fellow citizens works.

Looking forward to Trumps attitude filtering down, and violent protesters actually doing jail time.

Paco Wové said...

"It's only going to fuel radicalization..."

Personally, I love the "we have to let them in or they'll get mad and kill us!" argument for immigration. I'm doing you a favor here and letting you know that this is one majorly counterproductive argument.

Birkel said...

None of you voracious news consumers understand how this looks to the voters who matter.

HINT: We do not matter.

Michael K said...

" zero have been killed by green card holders since 2001."

The wife of the San Bernardino shooter had a spouse visa. I'm not sure how close that is to a green card but she was a legal resident.

Curious George said...

Not good. Revoke all green cards. Ban all Muslim immigration. All you need to do is look at any country that has allowed Muslim refugees and immigration.

Birkel said...

Paco Wove:

And it is an argument Trump invited and encourages.

PURPLE ELEPHANTS!

Michael K said...

"It's sad that you and ISIS share the same view, that Muslims can't coexist with us. "

Maybe it is those who are devout and who attend radical mosques, which is most of them now.

I know Egyptians but never asked them about their religion. Why did you ?

Christopher Souza said...

Didn't this blog used to be pretty anti-Trump? All I see here now are pro-Trump, anti-Muslim and anti-reality comments.

FullMoon said...

Christopher Souza said...

David,

Point taken on San Bernadino and Ohio State. The Boston bombers and Chattanooga attacker were citizens. Times Square plotter and underwear bomber were stopped. I don't see how any of these justify a refugee ban.


They were Muslims, though, right? Round 'em up, send them to camps. Save money on welfare, create jobs for un-employed.

Christopher Souza said...

Michael K:

I said I have Muslim friends. Most friends know things about each other, like what religion they are.

David Begley said...

Christopher

A key point that many miss is that the United States has no DUTY to allow anyone into this country. They have no civil or constitutional rights.

Yes, there are individual sympathetic cases for Syrian refugees. But in a complete societal breakdown that has happened in Syria, it is just too risky to allow anyone in.

Another point is that our "friend" Saudi Arabia has apparently done nothing. Maybe these refugees should stsy close to home. And, of course, the refugee migration into Europe has been a failure.

Finally, Obama and Hillary created this mess and they just wanted to import the problem here.

Birkel said...

Leftist Collectivist argument:

1) Keeping them out will radicalize them.
2) No murders.
3) We cannot kick them out.

So what happens after there are lots of attacks? Will #3 still apply?

Christopher Souza said...

FullMoon,

I'm new here. Please tell me if you're serious or trolling with your calls to bring back internment camps.

If you are trolling, you should know there are people who are serious about this, and your comments are helping them.

Achilles said...

Blogger Christopher Souza said...

"No, because we're not. Obviously. National security experts--on both sides of the aisle--have been stating that a ban like this will do nothing to make us safer since Trump first floated it. "

The same experts in Washington DC who have been there for 10-30 years that have been doing such a bang up job on immigration?

You keep on siding with Muslims. Please keep it up. Keep telling Americans how bad it is to judge them and how the democrat party wants them to help us be more civilized and tolerant. Please keep telling everyone you think they are better people than us. It will totally work for you.

FullMoon said...

Christopher Souza said...

That's a pretty big generalization of 2 billion people, Jay.

It's sad that you and ISIS share the same view, that Muslims can't coexist with us. I know this isn't true, since I have Muslim friends. Do you? Do you know any Muslims personally?

I wouldn't see my Muslim friends being forced out of the country as a "win-win."


Yeah, some people in San Berdoo had "muslim friends". Those people were slaughtered.
Round 'em up, put them in camps. Chop off some heads. Democrats did it in the forties, we can do it now.

Christopher Souza said...

David,

People have an ethical duty to help others when they can.

Given that we have the best vetting system in the world and that terror attack by refugees here are extremely rare, the risks do not outweigh the rewards. We will undoubtedly save more people than will be killed in acts of terror.

Note that Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries with business ties to Trump are not on the list.

If "Obama and Hillary created this mess," then we have even more of a duty to help clean up that mess.

FullMoon said...

Christopher Souza said...

FullMoon,

I'm new here. Please tell me if you're serious or trolling with your calls to bring back internment camps.

If you are trolling, you should know there are people who are serious about this, and your comments are helping them.


I am serious. Deadly serious. And, any Muslim sympathizer should be put in camps along with them. Don't worry about me "helping", we all feel that way already. We have felt this way for a long time. Next, the blacks and Jews are gonna be rounded up by Trumpkins.
But, you already know that, right?

EDH said...

NYT Annotation:

As a general matter, this will give priority to Christian refugees over Muslim ones. Though framed in a neutral way, this part of the order may raise questions of religion-based discrimination. Mr. Trump has said that he means to favor Christian refugees.

That violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion, according to David Cole, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “One of the critical questions with respect to the validity of executive action challenged under the Establishment Clause is its intent and effect,” he wrote in a blog post. “If intended to disfavor a particular religion, it violates the Establishment Clause.”


Two point points:

1.) Given the disparate treatment of Christian refugees by the Obama administration, isn't corrective affirmative action an appropriate remedy?

2.) Doesn't US law already allow the prioritization of refugees?

Three U.S. Refugee Laws Everyone Forgets
NOVEMBER 30, 2015

Because they really are suffering, we can’t ban Syrian Muslims, but we can give priority to refugee groups experiencing even worse suffering.

For example, it is widely known that ISIS regards Yazidis as kafir and, therefore, in ISIS’s version of radical Islamic terrorism, an acceptable target for murder, rape, and slavery, sexual or otherwise. This is a unique form of persecution, which means Yazidi refugees are refugees from a different kind of conflict than Syrian Sunni Arabs...

To be clear, the United States cannot legally declare that we will reject all Syrian Sunni Arab refugees. We are bound by international law to treat them in a non-discriminatory fashion. But refugee status can arise through two means: a person demonstrates he was persecuted for race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a group; or he shows he is “of special humanitarian concern to the United States.” Traditionally this has referred to groups made refugees as a result of U.S. policy decisions: informants in Iraq and Afghanistan, our allies in Southeast Asia after the Vietnam War, and others.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but given the recent history of Syria and Iraq, it’s reasonable that these regions could be seen as being “of special humanitarian concern,” especially if their persecution is uniquely violent. For Yazidis, Christians in ISIS-held territory, and many other minority groups, such a status could be offered, and the United States could therefore admit a comparatively small number of Syrian Sunni Arabs, and a much larger number of Yazidis, Druze, Christians, Jews, Sufis, and others.

The United States could admit a comparatively small number of Syrian Sunni Arabs, and a much larger number of Yazidis, Druze, Christians, Jews, Sufis, and others.

Administratively, this would work by the president rescinding the raised cap for refugee resettlement generally, then announcing a separate cap for a group of special humanitarian concern. If this process were used to admit groups that aren’t actually persecuted in a unique way (for example, if Sunni countries created such a cap to exclude Yazidi refugees), or if the United States shirks on bringing in appropriately screened Syrians under the normal program, we’d be violating international law.

Achilles said...

I think democrats should run on a platform to install sharia law in the US.

Christopher Souza said...

Achilles,

If national security experts on both sides of the aisle agree on something, they are probably right.

When the experts are wrong, it's helpful to explain why they are wrong and push for better methods. It is not helpful to say "Fuck experts; let's put our trust in people with no qualifications and no experience." But such is the stance of Trump voters.

You seem to be drawing a distinction between Muslims and Americans. Are you unaware that Muslim Americans exist? Do you agree with FullMoon that they should be rounded up and killed?

How many others here agree with FullMoon that we should engage in genocide against Muslims, just so I know what I'm dealing with here?

Jay Elink said...

Blogger Christopher Souza said...
That's a pretty big generalization of 2 billion people, Jay.

>>>>It's THEIR religion's generalization, not ours.

It's sad that you and ISIS share the same view, that Muslims can't coexist with us. I know this isn't true, since I have Muslim friends. Do you? Do you know any Muslims personally?

>>>>> Fuck your sads. The entire point of Trump's actions is to figure out how to distinguish between the ISIS types and people deserving of coming here.

>>> But the first thing woolly-headed progs like YOU need to do is to understand that Sharia laws' tenets are ENTIRELY in conflict with ours, and that NO practicing Muslim can take the Oath of Citizenship w/o first renouncing Sharia law.

Christopher Souza said...

"1.) Given the disparate treatment of Christian refugees by the Obama administration, isn't corrective affirmative action an appropriate remedy?"

There was no disparate treatment.

Drago said...

Christonpher Souza: "Note that Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries with business ties to Trump are not on the list."

All talking points, 24/7.

Tell us Christopher, why did Obama come up with that list of 7 countries?

What was the reasoning of the Obama admin?

Don't worry. No one expects an answer from you even though it is readily available.

Lyle said...

Christopher Souza,

Some Muslims are Islamists and should not be allowed in the country to permanently live. Citizen Islamists can't be forced out of the country, however. We'll have to put up with them like we put up with white supremacists.

David said...

"White House Corrects Fuckup."

Propaganda at 11.

Christopher Souza said...

">>>>> Fuck your sads. The entire point of Trump's actions is to figure out how to distinguish between the ISIS types and people deserving of coming here."

It really isn't, and you are desperately naive for believing it is.

Which version of sharia law are you referring to? Be specific.

Also, should Christian immigrants also denounce interpretations of Christianity which do not line up with constitutional values?

Finally, what is your take on FullMoon's statement that we should round up and kill Muslims?

Jay Elink said...

"Note that Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries with business ties to Trump are not on the list."

*************

The countries covered by Trump's EO are the SAME as those labeled by the Obama administration as being of major concern, because they are FAILED STATES or states openly hostile to the US.

Suudi Arabia and the other countries either are NOT failed states, Nor hostile to us, OR their visa programs allow for the vetting Trump seeks to achieve as a condition for entry.

Lyle said...

Christopher Souza,

When only 59 Christian Syrians have been let it compared to 10,000 plus Syrian Muslims there has been disparate treatment. This is especially so when Syrian Christians are specifically targeted by Islamists for extermination and enslavement based on their faith.

Renee said...

13 million Syrians displaced, OK. Obama said only increased it to 10k. Yes, the executive order was not completely thought out, but the United States isn't going to take all the individuals that have been displaced. The weekend has been more about theatrics, then helping.

Drago said...

Souza: "There was no disparate treatment"

LOL

Syria Christian population: 10%

% of Syrian Christians admitted compared to Syrian muslims under Obama: far less than 1%.

Best irony here? A lefty arguing that results outside the percentage of the group in the greater population DOES NOT represent disparate impact.

It just keeps getting better and better.

Birkel said...

Did Obama create the list of seven countries because of Trump's business interests or because the Russians hacked Obama's laptop?

Drago said...

Next up for the lefties like Christopher Souza: It's not fair to count Christians that have been drowned or had their heads cut off by muslims!! Those number shouldn't count!

And don't count the Christian children burned to death or captured and put into sex slavery!!

EDH said...

Christopher Souza said...
There was no disparate treatment.

Okay, correction "disparate impact."

THE U.S. BARS CHRISTIAN, NOT MUSLIM, REFUGEES FROM SYRIA
Sept 13, 2016

The headline for this column—The U.S. Bars Christian, Not Muslim, Refugees From Syria—will strike many readers as ridiculous.

But the numbers tell a different story: The United States has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent.

The BBC says that 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2 million Christians. It is quite obvious, and President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry have acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern Christians are an especially persecuted group.

So how is it that one-half of 1 percent of the Syrian refugees we’ve admitted are Christian, or 56, instead of about 1,000 out of 10,801—or far more, given that they certainly meet the legal definition?

The definition: someone who “is located outside of the United States; is of special humanitarian concern to the United States; demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.”

Somewhere between a half million and a million Syrian Christians have fled Syria, and the United States has accepted 56. Why?

“This is de facto discrimination and a gross injustice,” Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, told Fox News. Fox notes another theory: The United States takes refugee referrals from the U.N. refugee camps in Jordan, and there are no Christians there.

Here’s the Fox excerpt:

Experts say another reason for the lack of Christians in the makeup of the refugees is the makeup of the camps. Christians in the main United Nations refugee camp in Jordan are subject to persecution, they say, and so flee the camps, meaning they are not included in the refugees referred to the U.S. by the U.N.

“The Christians don’t reside in those camps because it is too dangerous,” Shea said. “They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community, and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs.”

“They are raped, abducted into slavery and they are abducted for ransom. It is extremely dangerous; there is not a single Christian in the Jordanian camps for Syrian refugees,” Shea said.

The solution would be to allow Christians, and other religious minorities, to apply directly for refugee status, not through the U.N. U.S. Senator Tom Cotton has introduced legislation doing just that.

David said...

Here is part of Jimmy Carter's executive order of April 7, 1980.

the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Drago said...

Souza: "Also, should Christian immigrants also denounce interpretations of Christianity which do not line up with constitutional values?"

LOL

And there it is!

You knew it was coming, didn't you?

Drago said...

Gee, Christopher Souza appears very very very interested in making sure we don't focus too much attention on the Christians in Syria being massacred by the muslims.

Hmmmmmm.

Jay Elink said...

Christopher Souza said...
">>>>> Fuck your sads. The entire point of Trump's actions is to figure out how to distinguish between the ISIS types and people deserving of coming here."

"It really isn't, and you are desperately naive for believing it is."

>> Why would Trump's order be temporary, then? And why would he carve out Syria, where ISIS is active, as the exception?

>> As for "desperately naive", you're obviously a milk-whiskered youth who hasn't noticed what's been happening all over Europe with the influx of Muslims.

"Finally, what is your take on FullMoon's statement that we should round up and kill Muslims?"

***********

>>He's a troll, whereas you are simply a flake.

>> YOU TELL ME what "versions" of sharia law you think are compatible with the US Constitution and our values. I say none of them.

>>Read these, and tell us what's acceptable to you:

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

Jay Elink said...

Souza: "Also, should Christian immigrants also denounce interpretations of Christianity which do not line up with constitutional values?"

*********************

And what are those, exactly?

Christopher Souza said...

I will have to investigate why so few Syrian Christians came in further.

I would like to know everyone's opinion of FullMoon's statement that we should round up and kill Muslims before I comment further. It seems most commenters here have taken more issue with my statements than with this one, which I find curious.

BADuBois said...

To quote the one and only Casey Stengel: "Can't anybody here play this game?"

I have memories of amateur hours when it came to the Carter and Clinton administrations. Hate seeing it occur again.

Drago said...

I wonder how many muslim refugees Christopher is willing to take in?

I'm guessing the number is zero, even though if push came to shove I bet he COULD.

Lead on Christopher. Lead on!

n.n said...

Executive Order 13768 of January 25, 2017 - Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States [federalregister.gov]

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:

(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;


Does a Green Card Holder (i.e. permanent resident) qualify as a "removable alien"?

Drago said...

Christopher Souza: "I will have to investigate why so few Syrian Christians came in further"

LOL

Yeah, I'm sure you'll get right on that.

Drago said...

Christopher Souza: "I would like to know everyone's opinion of FullMoon's statement that we should round up and kill Muslims before I comment further."

LOL

You mean if we don't comment on Fullmoons statement you'll stop posting?

Wow, talk about creating a "perverse incentive".

Fernandinande said...

“This #MuslimBan is also messing up attendance at our bi-weekly ‘Undermine Western Civilization’ meetings.”>

Birkel said...

BADuBois:
So it was not amateur your when communists infiltrated the FDR Administration? Or when Obama was dumping millions of dollars into Iranian hands?

Run away.

Jay Elink said...

Souza: "I would like to know everyone's opinion of FullMoon's statement that we should round up and kill Muslims before I comment further. It seems most commenters here have taken more issue with my statements than with this one, which I find curious."

Wha...? Did Ann die and appoint YOU the new blogmaster?

Who the eff are you to demand that everyone give their opinion of someone's crazy, trollish statement before you will deign to comment further??

Please, take your deflated balls and go home.

Paco Wové said...

"I would like to know everyone's opinion of FullMoon's statement..."

Althouse commenters are not responsible for responding to every outrageous troll comment that appears here. (Would that more of them were ignored.) Nor are Althouse commenters responsible for jumping through sets of hoops lined up for them by other commenters.

Christopher Souza said...

Since it is apparently normal here for commenters to call for rounding up and exterminating religious minorities, and no regular commenters seem to take issue with that, I'm afraid this is not the place for me. It's a shame; I've heard good things about Ann Althouse, and assumed she ran a better blog than this.

James Pawlak said...

NOT GOOD---Unless they are most exactly checked-out as active or potential terrorists or the (CAIR like) supporters of Islamic-terrorism (Please forgive the redundancy).

The same applies to the anchor-children of Muslim immigrants who, as in Minnesota, have gone into Islamic ruled nations to train as terrorists.

Achilles said...

I think democrats need to keep trying to convince Americans we need more Muslims here. This is key to your electoral chances.

I will keep telling Americans what I saw in Muslim countries. I will tell them about sharia law.

After that democrats need to tell us how we need to import half the population of Mexico and get them voting as soon as possible.

Drago said...

Christopher Souza: "Since it is apparently normal here for commenters to call for rounding up and exterminating religious minorities..."


Whoa! That escalated to PLURAL status VERY quickly, eh Christopher?

Yeah, that Fullmoon with his crazy generalizations!! Not like Christopher! Oh no, not like Christopher at all!

Drago said...

James Pawlak: "The same applies to the anchor-children of Muslim immigrants who, as in Minnesota, have gone into Islamic ruled nations to train as terrorists."

That NEVER happens!! It can't happen!! It would destroy lefties arguments and make them sad!

We can't have that.

Chuck said...

Christopher Souza said...
Didn't this blog used to be pretty anti-Trump? All I see here now are pro-Trump, anti-Muslim and anti-reality comments.


Christopher, welcome. (Not sure why I'd be the one to say "welcome," since it is Atlhouse's blog, but I suspect that she very much welcomes you and your thoughtful comments.)

No, Althouse was never "Anti-Trump." I don't think Althouse wants to be "pro-Trump" as much as she wants to be open to what Trump means.

Althouse has been pretty brilliant, in criticizing the New York Times and other elements of big media, in their anti-Trump errors.

But she has also foregone (it's her blog, to be sure; she can forego any damn thing she wants) a countless number of occasions to be critical of the Trump campaign and presidency.

As a result, perhaps unintended, she has created a very hard and vocal Trumpkin commentariat.




n.n said...

Rights and Responsibilities of a Green Card Holder (Permanent Resident) [uscis.gov]

Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Christopher, welcome. (Not sure why I'd be the one to say "welcome," since it is Atlhouse's blog, but I suspect that she very much welcomes you and your thoughtful comments.)"

"thoughtful comments"

Christopher Souza: "Since it is apparently normal here for commenters to call for rounding up and exterminating religious minorities, and no regular commenters seem to take issue with that,...."

"lifelong republican" Chuck is fully on board with this insane assertion.

Unexpectedly.

It's a good thing it was so thoughtful" though....

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "But she has also foregone (it's her blog, to be sure; she can forego any damn thing she wants) a countless number of occasions to be critical of the Trump campaign and presidency."

Oh, I would imagine that the number of instances for which one might criticize Trump is quite finite.

But your hyperbole and steadfastness in foregoing any detailed criticism of anyone on the political left/dem "a countless number of" times is duly noted.

Unexpectedly!

Jay Elink said...

Christopher Souza said...
Since it is apparently normal here for commenters to call for rounding up and exterminating religious minorities, and no regular commenters seem to take issue with that

************

Yeah, ignoring outlandlish trollish comments amounts to endorsing them.

Brilliant. Apparently, the admonition, "Do Not Feed the Troll" no longer applies.

As Khan on "King of the Hill" used to say, "Your ass is GENIUS!!"

Drago said...

The only open question I have is whether or not "lifelong republican" Chuck happens to be sitting directly across from "Thoughtful" Christopher Souza as we speak?

n.n said...

There is no reversal since Green Card Holders in compliance are not classified as "removable" and are therefore not subject to being barred by the US Constitution, US Code, or the executive order that affirms their enforcement.

Paco Wové said...

"I'm afraid this is not the place for me"

Well, I can't say I'm too disappointed. The fewer disingenuous liars around the better, n'est-ce pas?

Achilles said...

Blogger Christopher Souza said...
"Since it is apparently normal here for commenters to call for rounding up and exterminating religious minorities, and no regular commenters seem to take issue with that, I'm afraid this is not the place for me. It's a shame; I've heard good things about Ann Althouse, and assumed she ran a better blog than this."

You are making me sad. Not that you had an ounce of critical thinking ability or had anything useful to contribute anyways. You were unable to cut it here.

Go put your stuffed pussy hat on and continue your irrelevance.

Drago said...

n.n: "There is no reversal since Green Card Holders in compliance are not classified as "removable" and are therefore not subject to being barred by the US Constitution, US Code, or the executive order that affirms their enforcement."

Further, from Althouses earlier link it appears that all current green card holders will be handled on a case by case basis.

This makes perfect sense as a "disruptive tool" for the Trump administration. Our enemies might have recently believed that possession of a Green Card solved some of their logistics problems. By making Green Card status something which could be re-reviewed at the discretion of empowered authorities this represents a wrinkle that our enemies will have to plan for and cannot take for granted.

Whether or not that represents a true change in actual outcomes (I would argue "yes" based on the last 24 hours and, I believe, PURPOSELY so), or not, none of us really know.

And neither do our enemies.

No wonder the lefties are in such an uproar!

YoungHegelian said...

@Christopher,

It's sad that you and ISIS share the same view, that Muslims can't coexist with us. I know this isn't true, since I have Muslim friends. Do you? Do you know any Muslims personally?

Are your Muslim friends "really" Muslim or are they in reality what I call "genteel agnostics"? I'm not sure there really are many "moderate" Muslims. I think that there's a lot of "genteel agnostics" in Muslim countries.

Because of the importance of the historical struggle between Christianity & Islam, most comparisons are between these two faiths and are socio-political, not theological. Islam is closest theologically to Judaism. Being an observant Muslim is much like being an Orthodox Jew -- there are rules & regulations covering every aspect of daily life. If you go look at web sites for religious Muslims, you'll see that most of the questions are addressed at compliance with these rules.

So what's needed in Islam is not a Reformation, but rather a "Reform movement" as in Reform Judaism. When you look at the history of Reform Judaism there are figures of genius as "founding fathers" (e.g. Moses Mendelssohn), an environment of theological ferment in general (i.e. 19th C Germany), & finally, a community of believers that create "creedal" documents for themselves (i.e. the 1885 Pittsburgh & 1937 Columbus platforms).

I just ain't seeing any of that for Islam. I just don't see a theological language of "moderation" that somehow works out how one steps aside from the history of "submission" to these rules that form such a totalizing experience.

Drago said...

Achilles: "You are making me sad. Not that you had an ounce of critical thinking ability or had anything useful to contribute anyways. You were unable to cut it here.

Go put your stuffed pussy hat on and continue your irrelevance."

How can you say that about "Thoughtful" Christopher Souza? Why, "lifelong republican" Chuck is here vouching for Christophers "thoughtfulness" as we speak!

traditionalguy said...

DJT just broke through the great barrier on mentioning the Muslim Caliphate's Christian extermination, which has been the one big thing that Mullah Obama installed with all his might. Meanwhile all DJT had to do was say: Stop Murdering The Christians! And the MSM blew up like the scared cowards they are.

And CNN and MSNBC still wonder how that's gonna go over in Deplorable Land. Hint: the greatest Generation that never stopped fighting until they had killed Hitler's German Empire and killed The Jap Emperor's Empire, all in 3 1/2 years, were 90% Christians.

Karine said...

"I would like to know everyone's opinion of FullMoon's statement that we should round up and kill Muslims before I comment further. It seems most commenters here have taken more issue with my statements than with this one, which I find curious."

Christopher Souza, I'm not at all surprised. I've been a reader for several years and I've seen this many times. If it's one of their own saying things like Full Moon said, you will rearely see pushback by the regulars.

Drago said...

Karine: "Christopher Souza, I'm not at all surprised at all. I've been a reader for several years and I've seen this many times."

Wow. "many times" you've seen a call here to "round up and kill Muslims".

I can't wait for the links to those comments.

I'm sure you'll provide them any minute!

I'm also sure that "lifelong republican" Chuck will find your casual assertion of mass murder proclivities to conservatives "thoughtful".

n.n said...

Drago:

Yes. The executive order does not change the law, but affirms its enforcement and define priorities based on risk assessments. It does not indulge in [class] diversity and other forms of prejudice. It acknowledges principled alignment that requires a greater scrutiny to discern character.

Jon Ericson said...

It took them long enough to conclude that mere insulting didn't seem to be working, so now we get the plodding troll.

Drago said...

n.n: "Drago: Yes. The executive order does not change the law, but affirms its enforcement and define priorities based on risk assessments. It does not indulge in [class] diversity and other forms of prejudice. It acknowledges principled alignment that requires a greater scrutiny to discern character"

That is my understanding.

This "uncertainty" is warranted given the nature of the conflict between the west and Islamic supremacy.

Drago said...

Jon Ericson: "It took them long enough to conclude that mere insulting didn't seem to be working, so now we get the plodding troll."

One envisions a checklist of some sort.

Chuck said...

Christopher Souza said...
"Since it is apparently normal here for commenters to call for rounding up and exterminating religious minorities, and no regular commenters seem to take issue with that, I'm afraid this is not the place for me. It's a shame; I've heard good things about Ann Althouse, and assumed she ran a better blog than this."


Well Christopher I think that the blog content is superb. The comments are customarily good on most subjects, however the subject of Trump breaks down all civility. Almost beyond the capabilities of any moderation. Probably taking Trump's own lead on that.

Jon Ericson said...

Souza, gwash... so... patriotic sounding...

Achilles said...

"How can you say that about "Thoughtful" Christopher Souza? Why, "lifelong republican" Chuck is here vouching for Christophers "thoughtfulness" as we speak!"

In 10 years everyone will look back at upcoming elections and the progressives will regret that stupid womyns march. For the next few years every time the leftists spout some false moralistic crap we will just tell them to go put their stuffed pussy hat on.

The left has turned themselves into a laughingstock. I need to get my hands on a few pussy hats. They will be a great gift going forward.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Well Christopher I think that the blog content is superb. The comments are customarily good on most subjects, however the subject of Trump breaks down all civility. Almost beyond the capabilities of any moderation. Probably taking Trump's own lead on that"

Our good friend "lifelong republican" Chuck doubles down on his agreement with "thoughtful" Christopher Souza that it is "normal" for Althouse commenters to advocate for mass murder.

Good old "thoughtful", "reasonable", "fact based" "lifelong republican" Chuck!

Again, unexpectedly.

n.n said...

Drago:

The history of Islamic supremacy is anecdotal evidence in this case. The executive order does not reach beyond established law, which does not isolate risk based on [class] diversity (e.g. ethnicity, color of their skin) or mere principled alignment.

Roughcoat said...

Worth considering in this discussion:

"[S]ince 9/11/2001 there . . . have been 30,209 terror attacks in the name of Allah. . . . There have been 38 in the last six days alone, resulting in 425 killed and 419 injured. There were also nine suicide bombings during that time frame."

See: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=7038059157654326547

Drago said...

n.n, agreed. But there is context and common sense in play and it appears that our front line personnel have been afforded some rhetorical maneuverability perhaps beyond what existed before.

What are your thoughts on those "soft" aspects?

Jim at said...

"I will have to investigate why so few Syrian Christians came in further."

Because they were slaughtered by your Muslim buddies before they could find their way in?

exiledonmainstreet said...

When I was watching the Soros rent-a-mob at JFK last night, I thought to myself, "It's like 9/11 never happened."

For the past 8 years, I've felt like a person trapped in the back seat of a car called Western Civilization. The elites were driving the car and had headed it it straight off a cliff, gas pedal to the floor, all the while telling us in the back that we were idiots to be afraid, because they knew what they were doing and we were headed for a nice soft landing.

Trump has control of the wheel now and is attempting to brake and steer away from the edge. The leftists are in the back screaming and trying to climb over the seat to get the wheel back. They're determined to take us over the edge of the cliff and are spitting angry at anybody who does not share their taste for cultural suicide.

steve uhr said...

Question -- Why did Trump announce the new policy at 4:40 PM on a Friday? That is something you do if you want to avoid press coverage, but Trump NEVER wants to avoid press coverage.

Achilles said...

Blogger Chuck said...

"Well Christopher I think that the blog content is superb. The comments are customarily good on most subjects, however the subject of Trump breaks down all civility. Almost beyond the capabilities of any moderation. Probably taking Trump's own lead on that."

Silly Chuck. We know you like democrats better than republicans. We know you think people who actually want the United States to have a border and laws and freedom are awful. You call us teabaggers. You are no different than the democrats who like Mexicans and Muslims more than trump supporters.

You are not good people. Not going to treat people who act like these people act as if they are good people. Their only goal is to tear this country down and the freedoms we fought for. At best Chuck you are an enabler for them just like Hillary enabled bill to rape those women.

n.n said...

Drago:

I cannot comment on relative shifts without identifying who are the "front line personnel".

Angel-Dyne said...

Christopher Souza: It's sad that you and ISIS share the same view, that Muslims can't coexist with us. I know this isn't true, since I have Muslim friends. Do you? Do you know any Muslims personally?

Apropos of Paco's comment @12:49 PM, may I also suggest that you drop the "you must not know any X" line of argument? It's weak, for a host of reasons I'm sure you could figure out if you gave it two minutes thought. Couple of helpful hints:

1) Straw man: people who think restricting Muslim immigration into the U.S. (or the West in general) is a prudent idea do not think so because "OMG, YOU THINK ONE BILLION PEOPLE ARE EVIL TERRORISTS!!!!!!!"

Their reasons for holding the views they do are not based on personal feelings toward individuals, and in fact are not based on "personal feelings" at all.

There is no logical inconsistency in believing that most Muslims are nice people and also believing that allowing large numbers of them to migrate to the West is not a good idea.

2) You are talking to strangers on the internet and know nothing about their personal experience. There are people with more and closer friendships with Muslims than you, with far broader experience of Muslim culture, and deeper understanding of Islam than you - some of them agree with you, and some don't.

So please, leave the "you obviously think that because you must not know any Muslims and I do" line of argument to its natural constituency, dingbat teen-age girls on Facebook.

AJ Lynch said...


Christopher Souza:


I assume the Boston Marathon bomber brothers were refugees and green card holders at one time. They killed several Americans and that happened after 1975. So you are full of soup.

Drago said...

n.n, there are lots of direct management/front line personnel for all the Homeland Security operational components (or, as the left calls them: fascists), so it would depend on the component.

Drago said...

AJ Lynch: "Christopher Souza: I assume the Boston Marathon bomber brothers were refugees and green card holders at one time. They killed several Americans and that happened after 1975."

How dare you correct such a "thoughtful" poster as Christopher and more importantly, someone personally vouched for as "thoughtful" by a "lifelong republican".

Phil 3:14 said...

I'd encourage you all to read this and Legal Insurrection's review 9f the EO

Bottom line, awfully lazy reporting of the Executive Order. Whether you support or not, at least get the facts straight.

Birkel said...

Achilles:

Careful not to grab people by those hats.

Jon Ericson said...

Deep breath, Chuckles.
Lol.

exiledonmainstreet said...

" however the subject of Trump breaks down all civility"

Yes, accusing the readers here of advocating for the mass murder of religious minorities is the height of civility and politeness. I imagine you also agree with fellow thoughtful "life long conservative" Kevin Williamson that the Trump sons are just like Saddam's boys. Ah yes, Eric and Don Jr. routinely relax down at Mar-A-Lago by feeding people into wood chippers and indulging in a bit of rape.

We should not respond to such accusations. That's not the "life long conservative" way. Good Republicans drop their pants and bend over.

roesch/voltaire said...

EDh I agree that The United States could admit a comparatively small number of Syrian Sunni Arabs, and a much larger number of Yazidis, Druze, Christians, Jews, Sufis, and others should be given priority but this executive order should have some of its own vetting before the Trump sign. Obviously Althouse and myself work at a university that houses many faculty and students who are Muslins with a variety of beliefs from agnostic to Salafi's , although I have not met any of those, and we have not been harmed, but managed to work in cooperation with each other.

n.n said...

Drago:

I would characterize any change, if it has occurred, as a restoration of strict semantic interpretation (e.g. conservation), rather than a rhetorical liberation which is where, in addition to the twilight zone (a.k.a. penumbra), the semantic games were previously played.

Jon Ericson said...

Oh, yeah, famous philosophers. Adds gravitas.
*snicker*

Sebastian said...

"you will rearely see pushback by the regulars." Unlike the lefty blogs, we do not police everyone's statements, insist on ideological purity, or vilify people we disagree with (well, except for the mild abuse heaped on LLR Chuck). In the spirit of our hostess, we write about what we want to write about. Which means that some of us never comment on any contributions by certain commenters, including the far-out hyperbole.

But before worrying about anonymous blog comments against Muslims I am a little more focused on the continued support among large groups of Muslims for violence against Westerners, on the nearly 1000 ongoing US terrorism investigations involving Muslims, on the outrageous violence committed by Muslims against Christians and against fellow Muslims in the Middle East, on the woeful lack of serious action by Muslim leaders across the globe to put a stop to it, and on the tacit or overt support for violence by Muslim leaders -- because, after all, as Mr. Erdogan has assured us, there is only one Islam. After a generation of serious reform, without any further terrorist attacks anywhere--no more bombing of Christian churches in Pakistan, no more kidnapping of girls in Nigeria, no more sexual terror by ISIS, no more truck attacks in Europe, no more terror support from Minneapolis, no more nightclub shootings in Florida, no more need for terror investigations of any Muslim communities in the US--after a generation of good behavior and cultural change, I will start objecting more vociferously to blog commenters who are mean to Muslims.

Birkel said...

steve uhr:
The Friday release only works for Democrats. If Obama wanted to bury a story he could release unpleasant news on a Friday and have it safely ignored.

Trump released news he knew the Left would use on Sunday shows. He further knows that ordinary Americans -- none of us here -- see the press working against the interests of ordinary Americans. And Trump is for those interests.

PURPLE ELEPHANTS, be gone!!

AJ Lynch said...

Drago:

Good one!

[I hated Obama and admitted that - thought he was a fraud and an inexperienced incompetent glib poser. Chuck will never admit he hates Trump]

Achilles said...

Every time some leftist burns a flag we are going to burn a pussy hat.

Drago said...

n.n: "Drago:
I would characterize any change, if it has occurred, as a restoration of strict semantic interpretation (e.g. conservation), rather than a rhetorical liberation which is where, in addition to the twilight zone (a.k.a. penumbra), the semantic games were previously played."

Interesting. In your assessment if there has been any change its a change back towards the "letter of the law" and less "squishiness" that was clearly used in the past to be lax in enforcement.

Achilles said...

"Obviously Althouse and myself work at a university that houses many faculty and students who are Muslins with a variety of beliefs from agnostic to Salafi's , although I have not met any of those, and we have not been harmed, but managed to work in cooperation with each other."

Any Muslim willing to publicly renounce sharia law and draw a picture of Muhammad can go through the same lawful immigration procedure as anyone else. A part of this requirement is publicly stating Israel has a right to exist and is the only free country in the Middle East.

The rest can gtfo.

Chuck said...

Phil 3:14 said...
I'd encourage you all to read this and Legal Insurrection's review 9f the EO

Bottom line, awfully lazy reporting of the Executive Order. Whether you support or not, at least get the facts straight.


The easiest thing to do, to defend the EO, would have been for Trump himself to forcefully proclaim that it was not an order aimed at any country because of any "majority-Muslim" status, and that the order had nothing to do with Islam or Islamic cultures.

George W. Bush did that, notably, on a number of occasions with respect to some of his own policies on different issues. Obama did it too, and mostly avoided getting sidetracked on anti-Islam memes.

I get the feeling that Trump doesn't want to do that at all; that emphasizing the "majority Muslim" aspect of the order helps Trump and his most devoted supporters congratulate each other on something like a promise kept: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what [the hell] is going on."


Drago said...

roesch/Voltaire: "EDh I agree that The United States could admit a comparatively small number of Syrian Sunni Arabs, and a much larger number of Yazidis, Druze, Christians, Jews, Sufis, and others should be given priority but this executive order should have some of its own vetting before the Trump sign. Obviously Althouse and myself work at a university that houses many faculty and students who are Muslins with a variety of beliefs from agnostic to Salafi's , although I have not met any of those, and we have not been harmed, but managed to work in cooperation with each other"

I have no reason to doubt any of that as it mirrors my own experience overseas as well as working for multi-nationals here in the states.

However, I must urge some caution. I do know from personal experience that attitudes expressed by some muslims WHILE here in the states, under this current demographic balance and political structure, are not always the most reflective of TRUE Islamic viewpoints of those individuals were any of those constraints lessened or removed.

I am reminded of a liberal author from sometime after 9-11 who wrote about muslim "friends" of his in Maryland and they would meet regularly to chat about just about everything and all was well.

Until this liberal author (and I'm racking my brain trying to remember where I read it (The Atlantic maybe?) mentioned a few things about his religious beliefs that Allah was not the one true God or whatever.

The author relayed that his "muslim" friend told him that was okay to say here but they were in the "friends" muslim home country he would have to kill him for saying that.

The author expressed shock.

I immediately felt shock that the author was shocked, until I remembered the author was a liberal and can't seem to accept human nature and true and irreducible beliefs.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Their reasons for holding the views they do are not based on personal feelings toward individuals, and in fact are not based on "personal feelings" at all."

Exactly. I know nice Muslims too. That doesn't change the fact that Islamic countries are breeding extremists who wish to destroy the West.

This is the game the left always plays. As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the Right is at a disadvantage because while the media can always interview a forlorn individual who is hurt by immigration policy (or welfare reform, the example he used) it is impossible to interview the people who were not killed because someone who shouldn't be here was kept out.

That's why I think Trump is smart to bring forth the parents of people killed by criminal illegals. I'd like to see more of Ayaan Hirsi Ali on TV.

Birkel said...

roesch/voltaire...

Maybe ask those attacked at Ohio State and UNC- Chapel Hill what they did wrong with those bad apples.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "The easiest thing to do, to defend the EO, would have been for Trump himself to forcefully proclaim that it was not an order aimed at any country because of any "majority-Muslim" status, and that the order had nothing to do with Islam or Islamic cultures."

Chuck gotta Chuck apparently.

The 7 countries were chosen specifically by the Obama admin because 6 of them are fundamentally failed countries and "broken" with no way to ascertain anything "official" about potential emigres and Iran was added because it was one of the chief exporter of terror.

Your refusal to acknowledge these basic facts is not something one would expect of a "lifelong republican" but instead is emblematic of a talking points spewing moron from Daily Kos.

Readers may draw their own conclusions.

Bad Lieutenant said...


Christopher Souza said...
Didn't this blog used to be pretty anti-Trump? All I see here now are pro-Trump, anti-Muslim and anti-reality comments.

1/29/17, 12:53 PM


Refunds are at the service counter.

You will be allowed to say anything you like here. Others will respond with the same freedom. There are a few here you may find sympathetic, if approbation is what your soul needs.

If you make demands on all based on the words of one as a condition of gracing us with your presence? Boy, bye.

FTR I didn't read FullMoon's words. Your characterization of them is suspect. So let me just say, "Hmm, interesting, what do you mean by that?"

As for expert opinions, experts have been failing us for a long time. Not so married to experts anymore. Certainly before committing resources to their vision, they need to be vetted for e.g. conflicts of interest.

Hope that was nice enough for you.

roesch/voltaire said...

Achilles--Japan did something like this to Christians in the 1600, read the Silence by Endo to get the details.Still a good number of Christians were alive and died when we bombed Nagasaki.

Birkel said...

Chuck, you insufferable prig, Trump is not doing what you suggest because he wants you and the Leftists and the press (redundant?) to overplay their outrage. You predictable scolds comply every time.

How many PURPLE ELEPHANTS will you chase?

Trump dangles you. You are the dancing fool.

Here I am helping you understand and there you are uncomprehending, thinking I am just insulting your dumb ass.

Birkel said...

Any word from your colleagues at OSU and UNC-CH, R/V?

n.n said...

Drago:

a change back towards the "letter of the law"

On the issues of sovereignty, interpretation, enforcement, rights, and immigration, it seems to be the case. Time will tell.

Chuck said...

The 7 countries were chosen specifically by the Obama admin because 6 of them are fundamentally failed countries and "broken" with no way to ascertain anything "official" about potential emigres and Iran was added because it was one of the chief exporter of terror.


This is a good point. It is a point worth emphasizing; it would have been good to immediately carpet-bomb the media with smart, careful well-spoken Trump Administration surrogates, all making the same point in a coordinated way.

Again; that's not what Trump did. He never does that. He makes an appearance, signing the order, with a bunch of dumb-sounding soundbites about "Radical Islamic Terrorism."

Look at what happened; Rudy Giuliani goes out and says that Trump asked him to try to draft a Muslim ban that would pass legal challenges:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/29/rudy_giuliani_admits_trump_wanted_a_muslim_ban_asked_for_help_on_doing_it.html

n.n said...

The refugee crises occurred because we waged social justice from afar. The issue is not the refugee crises, but rather the resolution of its underlying causes. The NYT is not only engaged in sophistry, presumably a continuation of their election reporting, but also in propagating the harm done to people on the ground.

David Baker said...

Question:

Recently I was refused service at a Muslim-run retail business (here in the United States). The reason I was given by the Muslim proprietor was that they (he) doesn't do "small transactions," although he had done the very same transaction for me on at least one previous occasion, without incident.

When I asked him to clarify his refusal, he became contemptuous, bordering on hostile. It's a franchise, provides a common service, and the transaction I was seeking is standard by every measure. The point then becoming obvious that he didn't want to serve "me," I assumed because I looked like an infidel, the sole provocation being my presence.

How would you have handled this situation?

Bad Lieutenant said...

This is a good point. It is a point worth emphasizing; it would have been good to immediately carpet-bomb the media with smart, careful well-spoken Trump Administration surrogates, all making the same point in a coordinated way.


No, Chuck, you don't get it. That's just what he doesn't want to do.

Bad Lieutenant said...

This is a good point. It is a point worth emphasizing; it would have been good to immediately carpet-bomb the media with smart, careful well-spoken Trump Administration surrogates, all making the same point in a coordinated way.


No, Chuck, you don't get it. That's just what he doesn't want to do.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "This is a good point. It is a point worth emphasizing;"

You know better and it doesn't change your talking points.

roesch/voltaire said...

Birkel, no word from them or the four faculty in the Iowa U physics department who were killed by Gan La a graduate student from China.

Achilles said...

Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
"Achilles--Japan did something like this to Christians in the 1600, read the Silence by Endo to get the details.Still a good number of Christians were alive and died when we bombed Nagasaki."

Just read the wiki summary. That is totally like what I said. Exactly the same. You need to put a sticker on your pussy hat for that incredible rebuttal. You are not a complete joke nor do you completely ignore context.

You are not as smart as you think you are. Please keep comparing Muslims favorably to Americans though. It will totally work out for you.

AJ Lynch said...

Drago:

Good one!

[I hated Obama and admitted that - thought he was a fraud and an inexperienced incompetent glib poser. Chuck will never admit he hates Trump]

Jon Ericson said...

I once tossed a coin and it landed on its edge.

Birkel said...

R/V:

I did not realize you are so militant. But if you wish to restrict Chinese student visas, who am I to argue?

AJ Lynch said...

Btw, this is good news. Trump shows he is capable of admitting he made an error and correcting it.

Bad Lieutenant said...

How would you have handled this situation?
1/29/17, 2:42 PM

David, what franchise, what service? In my Monday morning QB chair, I think I would be the opposite of you - I would make him famous.

Give all his details - spread the word - in any forum available. I would have whipped out my smartphone and started filming him. Get his name tag. Get the store location etc. Get him on record being nasty and refusing service and presumably violating policy. YouTube, etc. Be all innocent and injured, like they do it. May w get the manager, get as many of them on video and poasible. Get full names of possible. No need to bait them with "are you in this country legally" at least not while tape is rolling. If you like, you could provoke them off tape then capture the reaction on tape.

Alinsky you fucker, I read about your book!

Chuck said...

No, I get what Trump wants to do.

Trump wants to claim a kind of rhetorical victory, making good on his promise to call for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what [the hell] is going on."

He wants to get as close to that, as is legally feasible.

Of course, it is not legally feasible, to enact any "Muslim ban." That is what all of Trump's critics said from the start, and it was clearly right. Not that there was ever any doubt. Trump was wrong to call for a "Muslim ban," he was never going to get a "Muslim ban," and he's not going to get a "Muslim ban" now.

If the Trump Administration manages to defend this Executive Order in the federal court system, it will only be because the Administration goes out of its way to exhaustively prove that in fact they are not trying to impose a "Muslim ban."

Contrary to the Trump campaign rhetoric.

The Cracker Emcee said...

" Given that we have the best vetting system in the world and that terror attack by refugees here are extremely rare, the risks do not outweigh the rewards."

What rewards? Increasing unemployment? Creating banlieues of homophobic, misogynist nutters who haven't the slightest intention of assimilating and want to impose their fascistic religion on the rest of us?

Screw the risks. These people have repeatedly demonstrated that their beliefs are incompatible with a classically liberal democracy. What rational reason would there be for allowing them to come here?

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck, you are, in the words of IIRC Wolfgang Pauli, not even wrong.

Drago said...

Chuck: "No, I get what Trump wants to do.

Trump wants to claim a kind of rhetorical victory, making good on his promise to call for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what [the hell] is going on."

He wants to get as close to that, as is legally feasible."

What a load of nonsense.

He could have added a dozen additional countries to the list and he chose not to.

So, once again, as always and ever will be, the probability that your assessment of what Trump "really" wants to do, what he will do and what the outcomes will be remains at a very blissful zero percent.

Thank goodness, else we would be arguing about President Hillary's new policy of unrestricted immigration policies.

Jon Ericson said...

Chuck says he gets it.
Lol.

Drago said...

Again, a parlor game could be constructed with Chuck quotes and DailyKos quotes where the challenge is to "guess the origin".

It's a trick really. The quotes are indistinguishable.

Achilles said...

Chuck the fake republican:

"Look at what happened; Rudy Giuliani goes out and says that Trump asked him to try to draft a Muslim ban that would pass legal challenges:"

No shit retard. And now look at what is happening. The left is out there telling us how we need Muslims and how much better Muslims are than trump and his supporters. This is electoral gold.

We are also remembering that obama locked christians out and that obama passed his own executive ban and we didn't hear a peep from you leftists. You people are done. You are so transparently dishonest and disingenuous. Go put your pussy hat on and sit in the corner.

Phil 3:14 said...

Chuck said

"The easiest thing to do, to defend the EO, would have been for Trump himself to forcefully proclaim that it was not an order aimed at any country because of any "majority-Muslim" status, and that the order had nothing to do with Islam or Islamic cultures. "


Chuck, he's not going to try to please. Not his style. It's as if you want him to earn your vote. Not gonna happen.

I didn't vote for the guy. Yes I'm a #NeverTrumper. But that was BEFORE the election. It's over, time to move on.

Kevin said...

"National security experts--on both sides of the aisle--have been stating that a ban like this will do nothing to make us safer since Trump first floated it."

So it's only a problem when Trump floats it? When Obama did the exact same thing in 2011 there was no bipartisan outcry from the national security experts? No media outrage?

To review: Obama's action in Iraq (2011) made us safer, while Trump's same action in Iraq (2016) makes us less safe?

Sounds fishy. What you mean to say is that many national security experts have denounced a ban on all Muslims based on nothing but their religious beliefs.

This is not a ban on all Muslims. Thus, "national security experts" have yet to weigh in, and many would undoubtedly agree that this country-specific ban, regardless of religion, will likely make us safer. As did Obama's ban in 2011.

Karine said...

"You people are done."

A premature ejaculator.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...

Christopher Souza said...
"Since it is apparently normal here for commenters to call for rounding up and exterminating religious minorities, and no regular commenters seem to take issue with that, I'm afraid this is not the place for me. It's a shame; I've heard good things about Ann Althouse, and assumed she ran a better blog than this."


Well Christopher I think that the blog content is superb. The comments are customarily good on most subjects, however the subject of Trump breaks down all civility. Almost beyond the capabilities of any moderation. Probably taking Trump's own lead on that.


Civility? How dare you speak of civility, sir! You, who so hysterically , with worthless foam from the mouth, threatened physical harm to mild mannered, tiny lady, Greta VanSustern. Have you no decency, at last?

Birkel said...

Do not disturb Chuck on his hunt for PURPLE ELEPHANTS. His Acme hunting kit cannot fail him this time.

He is, after all, criticizing the Trump Campaign. That ended nearly three months ago. Nobody tell Chuck.

Drago said...

Karine's back....but without the links to all those quotes from Althouse commenters calling for mass murder of muslims.

Unexpectedly!

It's almost as if those quotes don't exist and Karine is just making it all up because, lets face it, what else does she have?

Kevin said...

"The easiest thing to do, to defend the EO, would have been for Trump himself to forcefully proclaim that it was not an order aimed at any country because of any "majority-Muslim" status, and that the order had nothing to do with Islam or Islamic cultures."

Why should he hold the media's hand? First, any rational person can see it's true. Second, the knee-jerk liberals and their media friends will immediately knee-jerk themselves into looking like morons proclaiming it's the Muslim ban they've all been waiting for.

To quote James Carville; “When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil.”

Jon Ericson said...

Why do you keep changing your name?
Fluid gender?
NTTAWWT.

Seeing Red said...

Bwaaaaa now the Professor has to put a civility bullshit tag on this post.

Obviously Christopher is not a long-time reader.

Hit the archives Souza.

Especially after Gabrielle Gifford's shooting.

Michael K said...

Boy the blank profile trolls are out today. Glad I went shopping for the new house.

Trump said he would ban Muslim immigration until "we sort out the people trying to come here."

He's doing it.

Hysteria by the Soros left.

Somebody else asks me if I know any Muslims, like they are all peaceful.

I know Palestinians and Egyptians and Iraqis and Lebanese.

And you know what ? I don't know what religion they are. I suspect the Palestinian doctor whose son I helped get into medical school is probably Christian because, at the party to celebrate his acceptance, the girls were demonstrating their belly dancing lessons.

I doubt they would do so if Muslim.

An Egyptian friend of mine is a Coptic Christian. He still hates Jews because (I think) he blames Israel for all the trouble the Coptics are getting from the Muslim Brotherhood.

The other Arabs I know may be secular Muslims or Christian or atheist.

You know what? I don't give a shit. If someone strikes me as a devout Muslim, I will avoid them because I don;t want to get a "sudden jihad syndrome" directed at me.

Plus, I think they are not compatible with our culture.

Seeing Red said...

Karine:

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

Ronald Reagan


Someone with a form of your name loves Reagan quotes. My apologies if it's not you.

Birkel said...

#51

David Baker said...

Bad Lieutenant said...

"In my Monday morning QB chair, I think I would be the opposite of you - I would make him famous."

Certainly an option worthy of consideration.

But there's also the larger point; many Muslims in this country truly hate us. If you could have seen the rage in that man's eyes, he might have pulled out his sword and tried to behead me on the spot. In fact, I believe that the only thing that prevented him from acting on his Muslim impulse was the presence of another customer - whom I might add was frozen in fear (terrorized) by the proprietor's sudden and potentially violent behavior.

IMO, Trump's ban and "extreme vetting" doesn't go far enough. Not even close.

Seeing Red said...

Ahh, so Chuck is arguing that the Trump administration should do the reporters' work?

Maybe they should have shut up, listened, and shown some curiosity instead of running off at their ink and bytes?

You know, balanced?

Birkel said...

Chuck continues to fight on the terrain chosen by his enemy, just as the MSM does.

I will allow Drago to draw the conclusions.

Drago said...

I am also compelled to point out that the fact that the seven countries selected by the Obama admin and vetted by the Congress (and thus was already a pre-approved set of countries where immigrants or green card visitors to/from were subject to greater scrutiny) was mentioned prominently by Reince Priebus on "Meet the Republican to be Interrupted Continuously" with non-college graduate Chuck Todd as well as by Sean Spicer on "This Democrat Week" with Martha "crybaby" Radditz.

You may recall upthread that "lifelong republican" Chuck was complaining that the Trump admin talking heads did not make this point.

Once again, "lifelong republican" Chuck is wrong about a simple point related to Trump.

Unexpectedly.

Drago said...

Birkel: "Chuck continues to fight on the terrain chosen by his enemy, just as the MSM does."

Chuck continues to fight on the terrain chosen by his purported "enemy", just as the MSM does.

FIFY

Drago said...

BTW, Kellyanne Conway, in addition to Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer, specifically mentioned where the 7 nations chosen for this initial policy enforcement came from: Obama.

So "lifelong republican" Chuck is batting a perfect .000 for complaints about Trump admin personnel discussing this key point.

The best part of all this? The "journalists" all basically demanding that additional countries be added to this list.

As with the voter fraud investigation, the Trump admin answer will be "gee, okay then...."

Jon Ericson said...

They were not allowed to read about 'ol Brer Rabbbit.

Jon Ericson said...

Rabbit

Robert Cook said...

"I wonder how many Americans have to be killed by 'Green card holders' and 'Refugees' before we stop with the tears and hair-pulling over restricting a few people from coming here."

Really? Are you truly concerned about being killed by a green card holder or refugee? You're more likely to be killed in a car crash or even in a bathtub fall than by a foreign terrorist.

Chuck said...

Great! So it's not a "Muslim ban." We are absolutely NOT going to engage in any "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what [the hell] is going on." As a certain candidate proposed when he announced his campaign.

Good. Trump's campaign bluster was nothing more than that. Trump successfully appealed to a nativist, anti-Muslim base group of voters, but he's not going to put that voter-appeal into actual policy.

Instead we'll have a policy that is based on a development of Obama-era (and Bush-era) policies. Not a "Muslim ban." What Trump talked about in the campaign won't be happening.

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

Robert Cook said...

"Why are these refugees trying to get into the USA? Isn't the USA now ruled by Trump-Hitler?"

Um, many who are being blocked and detained at the airports are not refugees but normal travelers from other countries coming here for a variety of reasons. Some live here and are returning from visiting out of country.

Kirk Parker said...

Christopher Souza @ 1:02pm,

Of course Fullmoon and Achilles are trolling or mobying, despite their disclaimers; don't you think their modest proposals speak for themselves?

That being said, I do have to object to your criticism "You seem to be drawing a distinction between Muslims and Americans". All they're doing is taking a page from that well-known respected organization CAIR, whose very name draws that precise distinction.

Fabi said...

I go play golf and see I've missed all the fun of a new troll -- and you didn't even leave a piece for me! I'll get you, my pretties.

Mark said...

The executive order nowhere says it applies to permanent residents. Some over zealous people -- most especially those opposed to the EO -- might have over-applied it that way, but the EO itself does not expressly do so. So, it really is not a "reversal" except if you are determined to make President Trump look bad.

gadfly said...

It seems to me that politics have again imposed themselves into the problem of terrorism and its prevention. Terrorism begins and ends with Muslims - can we forget 911? But the Trump action specifically excludes migrants from just seven countries and excludes countries that are the actual main sources of ISIS fighters, with Tunisia being first and Saudi Arabia second on the list- and for whatever reason (Trump Enterprises business partners?) they are not banned.

But the solution is simple: There is no entitlement, constitutionally or otherwise, for non-Americans to willfully enter and stay here - so do what we did in the 20th century - simply ban all immigration for any reason. In the old days, business required visitation and tourism was deemed to be necessary for economic reasons, but even permitting these types of visas gives authorities a fighting chance to keep track of foreign visitors. This makes enforcement of border crossings much easier to administer, especially if pre-approval is imposed as a part of the border-crossing ritual.

As Mom used to tell me, "Close the door, you're letting the flies in!"


Paco Wové said...

"I've missed all the fun of a new troll"

I don't think Mr. Souza was a troll, or one of our Mouth of Hillary sockpuppets. I think he was a gentle little soul, born and bred in some happy pink bubble, who simply withered in the full-on blast of Althousian commentary, and was forced to retreat via flounce-off to protect his tender psyche. Sad!

David said...

1. While it is not correct that there have been NO attacks by persons from Muslim countries since 9/11/01, it is correct that the number of attacks have been surprisingly few, and that no 9/11 scale attacks have been conducted since then. The optimum number of attacks is zero, but that is very difficult to achieve.
2. Why there have not been more attacks is not clear. Certainly the difficulty of sending and controlling terrorists across the ocean is a major factor, as are homeland security efforts. It's hard to mount an attack over this distance. We also have a more assimilated Muslim population than Europe. There are exceptions to that assimilation and these exceptions are potential (and actual) threats.
3. While the number of attacks in the US has been small, attacks worldwide are very frequent. People who count such things indicated that attacks since 2001 have been upwards of 30,000 worldwide. And for a variety of reasons there is every reason to believe that the threat level is growing, not declining.
4. The Trump hating left make a number of mistakes in their arguments about the climate we face. First, they lie and mislead about what the actual attacks have been. Second, they ignore the worldwide threat, and forget the vigorous actions that Dronemaster Obama took against Muslims (and his record level of deportations of CentroAmericanos.) Third, and most egregious, they argue that since past attempts to mount attacks have been sparse, we can afford to be relaxed in our efforts to keep terrorists and their organizers out of the country. But based on what we see in Europe and the rest of the world, we should be more diligent not more relaxed.

Trump's actions may seem draconian, though both Carter and Obama took similar steps with respect to Iraq and Iran. But they are not really different from the moratoria that Carter and Obama applied on entries from Iran in 1980 and Iraq in 2014. Eventually, when it seemed that the issues were more under control, these restrictions were relaxed. If a year from now these bans are still in effect, I will probably oppose them. But for now they seem sensible, and certainly they are not unprecedented in our recent history.

CWJ said...

Bavid Baker,

Just to let you know that I did read your comment. Me, I'd mutter wahat a jerk and move on down the highway. It happens. it's happened to me.

If only the more litigious felt the same way. But I don't view the state as my "Daddy" substitute to beat up "Johnny's" daddy for Johnny offending me.

Michael K said...

You're more likely to be killed in a car crash or even in a bathtub fall than by a foreign terrorist.

Exactly Obama's statement and look how well that worked for the Democrats.

Ben Rhodes said terrorism was a "communications problem."

Cookie, you could have gotten a job wit the Hillary campaign.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 293   Newer› Newest»