(((Reposted today 6/3/17 after three more London attacks, Manchester earlier… and the Westminster Attack in London 3/22/17. Its time to stop pretending it has nothing to do with Islam and Muslim extremists and the countries that allow and support it. 

Stop Playing Politics with real the lives of Real People and Real Families.)))

Reblogging on the Recovering Know It All. I’m not a Trump supporter or a person who voted for him, but I think Tom is right here in his assessment. Please read the post with an open mind. Predisposition to Hating Trump are just as bigoted as irrational hatred of all Muslims, which he doesn’t seem to be guilty of at all. -kia

Citizen Tom

Protesters holding signs outside terminal 4 at John F. Kennedy International Airport protest (from here) Protesters holding signs outside terminal 4 at John F. Kennedy International Airport protest (from here)

Well, I suppose it is better late than never. It seems that the Democratic Party has once again — now that they are a minority party and the party that hates President Donald Trump — rediscovered the Constitution.  However, they have not given up on their victim hunt. So it is that when President Donald Trump decided to ban refugees and residents from seven Muslim nations (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen) Democrats went predictably bonkers.

The news media, of course, went looking for victims, and so Trump had to defend his policy.

And in Iraq, a man who had risked his life working on behalf of the U.S. government bleakly wondered about his future and that of his wife and three children. Visas in hand, the family was due to fly…

View original post 591 more words



  1. Good grief Mike! Whereas the list of countries was drawn up by the Obama administration, and if tRump is concerned about terrorism he would have thought about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These two nations are the financiers.
    Iran- it was meddling by your government that led to the 1979 revolution. It hasn’t been better since
    Iraq- it was your government that claimed it was a threat to the world and went their guns blazings
    Libya- do I need say more
    Syria- mistakes by your government and others have got it to where it is.
    I was hoping that as one who calls themselves skeptics, you would at least question even those you think you agree with, especially when they are being economical with facts.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Are we as a country not allowed to protect ourselves from Islamic terrorism? Would you rather we suffer the kind of attacks that France and Europe have been victim to because of European openness to refugees?
      No, I think we have the right to screen those who enter and disallow those we will. It is after all our country, right?


  2. Pingback: who is more inconvenienced the detained or the dead? | Random thoughts

        • You want me to give you questions to ask Tom? If I wanted to ask questions of him I would just ask him. If you need my help for questions you would ask Tom, I’m not sure I can help.
          It seems you want to discuss or disagree with Tom’s post, my encouragement is to go direct to the source rather than thru me


          • You reblogged it, in part, because you agree with it. Doesn’t that mean that at least you can defend it or the positions it espoused?
            No, I don’t need help asking any questions. I have put my case to rest


            • Pretty obvious you have no questions, just disagreements. Please redirect to Tom’s post or the trump administration directly. Better yet get pissed off at Obama for creating the list in the first place.


  3. Why isn’t Saudi Arabia (where the 11th of Sept. terrorists hailed from) on the banned list?

    Is there a reason you’re aware of.

    Do you know how much business (direct and indirect) does President Trump have in Saudi Arabia?


    • Probably the same reason Obama didn’t have it on the list he gave the trump administration. Why not ask if Obama has any Saudi ties? It was Obama’s list


      • No, I’m asking you why Trump didn’t include Saudi Arabia, especially considering the specific language used in his executive order. Saudi Arabia is THE nation which should have been at the top of the list.

        Why isn’t it?


            • Sorry, can’t help you. I’m not a mouthpiece or an Apologist for the trump administration. If you have questions on the list, you might want to redirect to either the trump administration, or president obama from where the list came in the first place.


              • So you admit the “list”is ridiculous, grossly incompetent and without merit… Failing to including the Number One Exporter of Terrorsim to the United States: Saudi Arabia.

                Why, then, do you support it?


              • OK, but just so you know, the title of the executive order you’re supposedly supporting is PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.

                Odd that it then fails to include the Number One Exporter of Terrorism to the United States: Saudi Arabia.

                I, personally, would find that something impossible to support/defend. After all, all I’d be doing is defending gross incompetence.


        • I agree with John, over the long haul it is Saudi Arabia which is most directly responsible for the rise of extremist Islam and terrorism. The only real comfort I have is that the Saudi’s are getting some blowback from the terrorism they have encouraged and nurtured for so long (actually them and Pakistan).

          As for the Trump administration, from afar (Australia) it all reek so of incompetence. To not anticipate the trouble with Green Card holders is a shocking oversight.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Read the source, Luke! The list of countries wasn’t selected by the president.


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

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

      And please note that only Syrian nationals are banned indefinitely. (Sec. 5.C.)


        • I have no idea who wrote the title of the Executive Order. But how does the title of the document factor into who is responsible for selecting the “countries of concern” implicated in terrorism-related crimes?


          • What was the title of the Obama admin list, do you know? Under what heading was it compiled. What did it pertain to, and why was it made?

            And it does matter, as the Obama admin had nothing to do with Trumps EO titled: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.

            Where is the Number One exporter of foriegn terrorism to the United States, Saudi Arabia?

            Liked by 1 person

            • Did you read the EO? It only mentions one country: Syria. The list of seven countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen) mentioned by the MSM was compiled by DHS in 2011 under the Obama administration.


              • No. The critical part is that the facts don’t support the allegations President Trump selected these countries while ignoring others because it furthers his financial interests (unless you can successfully demonstrate he influenced that decision-making process over four years prior to running for office).

                And the reason Syrian nationals were singled out for indefinite suspension was because FBI director James Comey openly admitted that here was no way to properly vet refugees coming from that country during a House Judiciary Committee hearing held on on 22 Oct. 2015.

                Here’s the full video:



              • “And the reason Syrian nationals were singled out for indefinite suspension was because FBI director James Comey openly admitted that here was no way to properly vet refugees coming from that country during a House Judiciary Committee hearing held on on 22 Oct. 2015.”

                And yet, here’s Canada who has taken in over 50,000 Syrians in the same time frame with nary a peep of importing terrorism. And the reason? Might it be that there really is a way to ‘properly vet’ these refugees… a process perhaps too politically inconvenient for this superpower to handle?

                And the list from the DHS was just that… a list of SOME countries known to have provided violent jihadist support. But nowhere was there an executive order to forego legitimate visas and refuse entry to green carded citizens (oh, nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, either).

                This xenophobic religious discrimination order is entirely of Trump’s (& inept cabinet’s) making. Not to mention… unconstitutional according to Yates denying by EO some citizens of their Constitutional rights. Not that Trump apologists really care about any of that, firing the acting AG under the excuse she ‘betrayed’ the Justice Department. Good grief. Who’s doing the betraying here?

                Liked by 2 people

              • How is the EO unconstitutional given the U.S. Constitution mandates the federal government provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, establish a uniform rule of naturalization, suppress insurrections and repel invasions?

                Your opinions regarding the competency of U.S. and Canadian immigration departments may (or may not) have merit but fails to challenge any of the points I’ve raised.


  4. I urge all the immigrants from these countries currently in the United States but who have family beyond its borders to please apply to become Canadian citizens. We need people like you, people with the courage willing undergo such a difficult transition and put down roots in a different place. We respect your seeking a better life and want to include you in the Canadian family. We stand ready to help you to build whatever dreams you have for yourself , your children, and your extended family. Leave the US, please, and bring your talents, your knowledge, your skills, and your patriotism to where you can grow and live freely and fully without restrictions on your personal or business’ travelling. Make this your home and we’ll all benefit.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Never been to Canada. I’d love to visit sometime. I’m sure it’s a wonderful country. Not sure why you posted your invite here… why not on your blog too? You have alot more followers than I do, would get more exposure.


      • The point is that this policy isn’t about combating terrorism or improving security; it’s about religious persecution framed as xenophobia.

        I wanted people here to understand that the US is not the West, not the shining city on the hill it could be, but a place where the small minded and ignorant – especially people like Citizen Tom – can affect the country’s future in a very negative way under the guise – once again – of patriotism and misguided support for a toddler president.

        Over the past year, Canada has absorbed over 50000 Syrian refugees each with skills and abilities disconnected from whatever religious label that Americans who support Trump’s latest executive order want to use as the identifier for them. Other countries are not so stupid and will gain in every way including business by this intentional American policy. CT’s point assumes… and when you support policies that are based on such assumptions, it’s rather important to first figure out if the assumption is correct… that home grown terrorists come from these places.

        Au contraire.

        Like most assumptions CT makes, it’s absolutely wrong … certainly in the case of Syrians and Canada is a shining example of why that assumption is unequivocally wrong. The point made is that a more thorough vetting of immigrants from such countries is wise because these places are major sources for people who take up violent jihad. Correlation, sure. Causation, no. But causing so much immediate disruption in the name security is bone-headed and unnecessary to achieve the goal. This move politically plays well to the stupid and the ignorant and the xenophobic.

        And that means in real terms America’s loss.

        Security has not been advanced one iota and, as JZ quickly points out, if that were the intention then Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would stand 1 &2 on it. So let the invitation from the civilized world go out to these people here and wherever intelligent people gather and let the United States lose out for acting on their own inflated fears.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. Mike for what it is worth I a lot of sympathy for the views you expressed in your posts on the Acting Attorney General and the protests at Berkeley.

    I have noticed for some time that there is a tendency among left wing zealots to demonise everyone who disagrees with them and indeed to try to shot down debate with claims of racism etc. As I noted on Nan’s site it is so hard to find objective discussion of issues at present because everyone is so emotionally charged on both sides of the debate and increasingly we only seen to hear the extreme views.

    I recall back in June I was reading comments on the Guardian website and found that the majority of the commentators said they would be supporting Jill Stein. Now given the actual vote that Stein received it became clear to me that this noisy group that absolutely dominated the comments section were clearly a small minority group, but they made an awful lot of noise and accused most people who disagreed with them of being Nazi’s.

    In Australia where I live any illegal immigrants who arrive by boat are sent to Internment camps in Papua New Guinea or Nauru. The effect of this policy has been to reduce the number of such boats from hundreds per year to zero. The policy has support from around 80% of the Australian population, yet in the media all the commentary on the policy is negative and if one did not know better you would assume from the media that virtually all Australians disagreed with the policy.

    This residue from this policy was the background to the ‘robust’ discussion between President Trump and our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

    Having made all of these comments I still consider Donald Trump to be temperamentally unsuitable to be US President.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. If this was Islamic terrorism then I would have the body burnt with pig’s excrement. I would not allow an Islamic burial.

    Why give any religious rights post death to a person who used religion as their motivation for terror.

    I should add I don’t know at this point that it was Islamic inspired. Most likely it was, but on the other hand could just be a nutter.

    Liked by 1 person

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s