Ok, so let me recap. ZZZ states the fact that the public doesn't support the ban, I show him a Rasmussen poll about the ban, which he then claims is bullshit because of it's slant. I tell him to prove why it's bullshit, and he doesn't, at which point I tell him he can believe anything he wants, but that we here in America are just fine with the poll because we know it to be correct. Then you come in, guns blazing to jump me for being fine with polls that were so wrong during the election. I ask you why you think the poll is incorrect, and you respond by telling me the poll I mentioned is more correct than the other polls. Still with me ?
The Pen of Mjölnir Porter / 3 days ago January 28, 2017 If pain is seeing pleasure through another man’s eyes, then liberals must be writhing right now. After signing executive orders authorizing a beautiful wall, and an even more lovely stripping of federal grants from sanctuary cities, Trump Maximus then mandated weekly publication of crimes committed by illegals in sanctuary cities in a third order. And now yesterday the great pen of Mjölnir fell again upon the heads of foreign squatters and colonists. Trump suspended entry of all euphemistic “refugees” to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocked entry into the United States for 90 days for migrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. I’ve been quite disappointed to not see Obama’s “dream” decree littering the White House floor in shreds, though these are still bold and impressive moves for a President a week into his administration. I imagine Jeb Bush would have barely gotten around to issuing his first formal statement of solidarity with Israel at this point. Let us hope these bans are as fleeting as Nixon’s temporary move from the gold standard. Though there’s more churning than just Sudanese at JFK. Politics are undoubtedly shifting quickly. At this pace, neoconservatism is going to be buried deeper than Bill Buckley by the Ides of March. Cucks beware. There is simply no viable alternative to a man who actually advances his constituents’ interests, rather than attacking them. And not being invaded has been in every man’s interest since first having the issue explained by the point of a spear. Of course working in the interests of Americans means you are not necessarily working in the interests of Mexicans. And that has generated significant fear and rage in the area of northern Mexico once called Southern California. Much of which was focused on Trump’s outrageous prioritization of his own country. Others lamented the fact that The Wall would simply result in more deaths by those determined to scale it. That this preternatural commitment to live in someone else’s home against their wishes is what ultimately incentivized the barrier in the first place was little contemplated by the illegal alien being interviewed. Though Trump seems strangely unmoved by caterwauling beyond our borders. At yesterday’s signing ceremony the President continued a pattern of indelicately candid pronouncements by remarking on the slightly moderated migrant flood: We don’t want them here. No, we don’t want them here. We’ve never wanted them here. But no one was asking. Perhaps finally we’ve elected someone who does ask what the people who actually built and pay for the place have to say. If so, we have a naaasty President indeed. Godspeed to him. https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/the-pen-of-mjolnir/
Here’s A Short List Of Foreign-Born Terrorists Reporters Can’t Believe Exist The executive order by the Trump administration on immigration led to an urgent desire to proclaim there is no terrorism threat from immigrants. False. When arguing with the Left about matters of national security and terrorism, one becomes accustomed to their habitual moving of goal posts and artificial construction of sample sizes that deliberately exclude relevant cases. The most notorious example, of course, is the beloved “since 9/11…” canard, such as the oft-repeated although false claim that since 9/11 right-wing terrorists have killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists. The recent executive order by the Trump administration on immigration led to an urgent desire to proclaim that there is no terrorism threat from immigrants. The most egregious example: A tweet from The New York Times’ White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, who is also a CNN analyst. She posed the question, “Other than San Bernardino shootings, has there been a terrorist attack involving a non-US-born attacker since 9/11?” Of course, there is no sensible reason for excluding San Bernardino shooter Tasheen Malik, who was born in Pakistan, from a list of terror attacks. The attack killed 14 and took place only last year. But even within the confines of such a ludicrously constructed sample, the question surprised more up-to-speed denizens of Twitter, who quickly bombarded Haberman with lists of successful and unsuccessful attacks carried out by non-U.S.-born individuals, including some of the most notorious recent terror attacks. Yes, Foreign-Born Immigrants Have Committed Terrorism Among such individuals: the Tsarnaev brothers of the Boston Marathon bombing, who were both born abroad. Tamerlan was born in Kyrgyzstan in 1986, and Dzhokhar was reportedly born in Dagestan. The 2015 Chattanooga Recruiting Center shooter, Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, was born in Kuwait and lived in Jordan before migrating to the United States at the age of six. He killed five people. Ohio State University attacker Abdul Razak Artan, who ran over several fellow students with a car before attacking them with a butcher knife, was a refugee born in Somalia who had only been in the United States for two years. Ahmad Khan Rahimi, born in Afghanistan, detonated a bomb near a 5K run event, then another in downtown Manhattan in October of last year. Dahir Adan, a Somali born in Kenya who immigrated to the United States as a child, launched a mass stabbing attack at a St. Cloud Minnesota mall in 2016. And these are only a few recent examples. Let’s Just Define Away Counterexamples While it might be amusing to imagine that a mainstream media figure of some note is totally oblivious to any of the details of recent terror attacks, it’s almost beside the point. Had Haberman known better, perhaps she’d have simply constructed a question that did meet what appears to be her preformed opinion that foreign-born individuals are nearly incapable of representing a threat. That was the position CNN took in its piece on the Trump administration’s executive order. The piece moved the goal posts yet again, insisting that no refugee had carried out a fatal terror attack in the United States. That’s surely cold comfort to the families of those killed by Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky. After their fingerprints were discovered on Iraqi IEDs, the two Iraqi refugees were caught in an FBI counterterrorism investigation, where Alwan bragged about using a sniper rifle to kill American troops abroad. The two plotted to kill returning U.S. troops as well. An IED constructed by Alwan is believed to have killed four Pennsylvania National Guardsmen in 2005. That case resulted in a six-month freeze on Iraqi refugee resettlement in 2011 as U.S. authorities attempted to clamp down on serious screening problems. But, according to CNN’s twisted logic, these Iraqi refugees were never a threat. Ironically, the more attacks American law enforcement successfully prevent or mitigate, the less of a threat there is, according to the CNN model. If one were truly interested in whether there is a terror threat from individuals born abroad, one would examine the totality of activity, not a narrowly constructed definition aimed to minimize it. That’s what senators Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions did last June when they examined 580 individuals successfully prosecuted on terrorism offenses from September 2001 until 2014. According to the senators, 380 were foreign-born and at least 40 were refugees. While not all of those cases involved successful or attempted terror attacks, all involved cases that were terrorism-related. Haberman’s offhand tweet is a snapshot of the willingness of the mainstream media to engage in reflective self-censoring, a kind of doublethink, where reporters seem to remain proudly unaware of key evidence that would contradict their pre-established conclusions. Unfortunately for The New York Times correspondent, not everyone on social media was inclined to play along. Kyle Shideler is the director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy. Kyle has worked for several organizations involved with Middle East and terrorism policy since 2006. He is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace,” and has written for numerous publications and briefed legislative aides, intelligence, and law enforcement officials and the general public on national security issues. http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/30...born-terrorists-reporters-cant-believe-exist/
They also ignore the disturbing trend of the children of refugees becoming radicalized and creating problems, years down the road. That was the case with the Orlando nightclub shooter and it is a huge problem in Minneapolis with the somalis.
"Exclusive: Only a third of Americans think Trump's travel ban will make them more safe" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG
How would you be able to follow the conversation, or see what @Tsing Tao replied to when you blocked me as you claimed? Again a lie of yours?
It's ok, he does not really understand himself sometimes. BTW, I showed you a less biased poll from a less biased source. Or is Reuters biased nowadays, too?
Let me provide my thoughts on President Trump's executive order on a immigration ban from these 7 countries. First let me say at its core, the order is constitutional and legal. The ability of the President to issue orders banning immigration on a temporary basis from particular countries or particular groups of individuals has consistently been held up in court. In fact all 5 previous Presidents have issued similar immigration executive orders. These type of Presidential actions have been performed as far back as the 1830s and have always been supported in court decisions. Now let me discuss the problems I see with the executive order from President Trump. First the banning of Green Card holders was over-reach (it appears to have been rescinded). The order does not address people with dual citizenship (e.g. what about dual Canadian/Iranian citizens?). Also people in transit with valid Visa's in-hand should have been admitted. In my opinion the implementation of the policy was very poor. No guidelines were handed to agencies prior the announcement. There should have been clear guidelines prepared and issued prior the "start date". Also all the airlines, embassies and foreign governments were caught unprepared. The Executive Order should have had a "start date" about a week after the announcement in terms of banning incoming travelers with valid Visas, but stopped issuing new Visas immediately. The concept that terrorists from these countries would have rushed to come to the U.S. is not true (especially since most would not have Visas on the announcement date) - most of those trapped abroad are Visa holders who were actually in the U.S. already and then were abroad visiting family etc. Now some have questioned "why this list of 7 countries and not others where the 9/11 terrorists came from?" As noted by former President Obama these 7 countries are high risk because they do not vet and provide information on the travelers they send abroad. There are international standards for sharing information regarding people on flights that most countries adhere to. However these 7 countries do not share information - due to two reasons. Some of these countries (e.g. Syria) are war torn entities with no effective functioning central government. Others such as Iran simply refuse to cooperate and properly share information. I will note that countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan fully cooperate and share information via standard computer systems about their citizens traveling on airlines. This is why these countries are not on the high risk list or part of this temporary travel ban.