« Trump’s impeachment will happen | Main | Bricks »

January 30, 2017


Bill Peschel

Oh, please .... This faux outrage has been going on for so long that it's become boring.

There is nothing "disgraceful" about a temporary suspension of immigration from eight dangerous Muslim-dominated countries (at least as Obama called them) for the purposes of reviewing security precautions to keep ISIS from entering the country.

That's 8 countries (if I remember the number right) and that does not include major Muslim-dominated nations such as Egypt and Indonesia. Which undercuts your argument substantially.

Instead, we hear about a "Muslim ban" (which it isn't) from the media and unhinged shrieking from the equally uninformed, egged on by Democratic-partisan media (as the hacked emails to Podesta clearly show) and Hollywood celebrities (who are the equivalent of our intellectual aristocracy.

And as for "tearing this nation apart," I've had eight bloody years of hearing that because I am a white male, I'm a bigot, sexist, and rapist. And because I voted for Trump (who I didn't particularly like) over a lying incompetent crook such as Hillary, I'm "deplorable."

That ship sailed a long time ago, Nick.

Mick H

The ban will have absolutely no effect on keeping ISIS from entering the country, or on fighting Islamic extremism. ISIS are, predictably, delighted - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration-iraq-iran-restrictions-travel-islamic-state-us-visa-a7552856.html

And it's Mick, not Nick.


I wonder why the ban doesn't extend to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Of course, it's fairly obvious. As Nick Cohen says, we're seeing "a new era in right-wing politics. Religious sectarianism tempered by his personal corruption".



"Trump and his people do not care about this nation in any form that I, and millions of others, recognize or cherish. They don’t care about its institutions or its traditions or its higher calling."

That sums it up.

I don't understand the need for 90 days. Is it meant to give the administration time to come up with better vetting? We haven't had foreigners attack US citizens since the 2015 San Bernardino attack (the woman was a foreigner). Ninety days isn't buying much time.


Mick not Nick,

Could you tell us how Hillary would have kept ISIS out of our country? She was going to put into overdrive Obama's policy of moving as much of the Arab Sunni population of Syria to the US as possible, as quickly as possible. With the same cosmetic vetting by the UN and money-seeking resettlement NGOs.

Trump is going about this ineptly and half-assedly, as is typical of him, but that is not what has got people like you so enraged. What appears to anger you is the very idea that US does not exist for the benefit of foreigners.

And, btw, the "refugees" we've been taking come from refugee camps where they are quite safe (at least if they're Muslim, as 99% of them are - Obama avoided taking in the Christians, for some strange reason). So please don't trot out bogus analogies to turning away refugees from Hitler (as an earlier Democratic president did). As a US taxpayer, I'd be happy to contribute to efforts to resettle these lovely people in culturally similar parts of the world. I'm not interested in having more people who drank in Jew-hatred "with their mother's milk" (to quote somebody in one of your recent posts) voting in our elections.


Bob-B (and Nick Cohen, if he's reading), no country was actually named in the EO (except Syria). Instead, there is a link to a list of countries in a previous documents (under Obama) as countries that are a source of terrorism. This 90-day ban is just the next step.

I'm still against it, but I don't think the choice of countries is a problem, and I don't think Trump was thinking of his business deals.

Mick H

djf - Hillary was going to move "as much of the Arab Sunni population of Syria to the US as possible"? I can't really take this stuff seriously.

Mick H

I mean - to elaborate - I don't think there's necessarily a problem with the US wanting to tighten up its immigration procedures - and after all this was part of what Trump was elected for. It's just being done so ham-fistedly, so crudely. And so counter-productively. This isn't goung to help in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Quite the reverse.

I can't help seeing the hand of Steve Bannon here, as a kind of Mephistopheles, pulling the strings, and reveling in the chaos and confusion.


Mick, I said as much of them "as possible." That's still a lot of people, none of whom we need. Certainly, more than enough to screw up the flyover communities on which they would be dumped. You might want to read up about how Somalian "refugees" forced on Minnesota have "enriched" that state. If Britain wants these sort of people, help yourself.


I completely agree that Trump is doing this in a ham-fisted, clumsy, reflexive way that almost guarantees that he will not achieve any sustainable policy result. Reports are that he and his White House inner circle (Bannon, yes, and a young speechwriter named Stephen Miller - a Jewish guy, FWIW) are flying solo on this, without input even from the relevant departments, even Trump's recent appointees (e.g. Mattis and Kelly). Hence idiocy like barring people who already have residency rights here.

By the time his term is up, Trump may turn out to have been the best thing ever to happen to the Left in the US. And their Islamist allies.

The comments to this entry are closed.