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 Monday to the United States. “It’s like someone’s stabbed me in the heart with a dagger,” he said.

Trump issued a statement late Sunday afternoon that offered little clarity, even as he defended his executive order as necessary to protect the United States from terrorism.

“To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting,” Trump said in the statement. “This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.”  (from here)

Frankly, since the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims, and those terrorists are trying to kill us in the name of Islam, it is about religion.  Nevertheless, Trump did not make it about religion.  He just picked countries countries that are hotbeds of terrorism, and he used a list provided by former President Barack Obama.

As the Left and some Republicans lose their minds over President Donald J. Trump’s executive order on immigration, let’s not forget that the list of concerned countries that the Trump administration outlined in the order is based on the one signed into law by the former Obama administration. So, it looks like the Obama White House set the groundwork (viaMic News). (continued here)

Why those seven nations? How do we vet people from nations in chaos? Who are we going to ask — which security services — whether the applicants from these nations are safe to let into our country.  When Muslim nations that are at “peace” already send us terrorists, why would we want to take refugees from nations we know are full of active and rabidly dangerous, murderous terrorists?

Anyway, I like what our new president is doing. It isn’t perfect, but it is far better than what the guy he replaced was doing.  So I am sending out this note to my elected officials.

Dear President Donald Trump (https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact)

Thank you for making a good start on your campaign promises. What a great string of executive orders!

I hope you will stand firm on your commitments. I understand that sometimes you will see that you have made a mistake and make adjustments. I also understand the need for compromise. Sometimes as President Ronald Reagan said we have to give up 20 percent of what we want to get 80 percent. Nevertheless, I pray you will have the courage, fortitude, and wisdom required to withstand the pressure from a partisan news media and your opponents in Congress. I hope our Lord will bless your efforts, and you will continue to forge ahead.

Note that I am sending this note to the elected officials who represent me in Congress.
Dear Congressman Rob Wittman (http://wittman.house.gov/contact/)

For all intents and purposes, you come across as a Conservative Republican. Yet as a famous commercial once said: “Where’s the beef?” Granted you have had excuses. First it was that the Senate was run by Democrats. Then it was that the White House was still run by Democrats.

Now the Republican Party is out of excuses. You say you are a Conservative? Well, our President could sure use some help, and he is getting more Conservative things done than anyone else. Please follow his example and help him.

Dear Senators Tim Kaine (www.kaine.senate.gov/contact) and Mark Warner (www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact)

I just wanted you guys to know that there are people out there who like what our new president is doing.

Here is a list of Trump’s Executive Orders.  Good stuff!


  1. The ban on immigration from terrorist havens is good policy, the roll out and lack of for site was a disaster. I agree with what you’re saying here about Trump and there being plenty of people happy with many of the things he is doing (myself included), but he has got to up his game if he hopes to accomplish the big things he boasts about.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Tricia

      Up his game?

      You are tough! Give the man a break. He still has to get Congress to approve most of his cabinet nominee. Trump is still working with the folks Obama appointed, and those people have no desire to make Trump look good.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Ha, no break from this chick! ;)I will give Trump credit where it’s due, which I have but criticize him when he deserves it and in this case he does with so many unforced errors. This article explains exactly my feelings on this if you’re interested,http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444385/trump-refugee-order-right-substance-wrong-rollout

        I meant to add earlier that it was a really nice move on your part to send your feedback to Trump and other lawmakers on this. They need to know there are plenty of people out there that support this EO.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. @Trica

          Thank you for that last paragraph. I hope I encourage a few people to send their own emails.

          I suppose you already know “National Review” detests the Donald.

          When the Donald slammed closed immigration from those seven countries, it was guaranteed the pro-open borders crowd would find fault, and nothing of that sort happens perfectly. The Donald is working with bunches of people put in place by the previous administration. Those people can be counted upon to not make it easy.

          Anyway, part of effectiveness of an order like this last one was getting done quickly — before the terrorists were aware it was coming — and then cleaning up the messy parts. Trump is not afraid to declare victory, admit it was not perfect, and move on to the next fight. I hope that’s a sign we have more mature leadership than we had any right to expect.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. You’re welcome Tom and I think it’s important too that people pray for our leaders and encourage others to do so as you would.

          I hope you didn’t let your thoughts about National Review get in the way of reading the article I linked to as it’s very fair in their treatment of him but brings some clarity on the obvious problems with the EO roll out. Not all their writers by the way detest Trump, Conrad Black, Victor Davis Hanson and few others write very favorably about him and even the ones that don’t have accepted he is president now and while they don’t coddle the man in their articles (as they very well should not) but they are not ripping him apart either.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. By the way, I believe those 7 nations came from a list the Obama administration had compiled and was already limiting refugees from. Can’t expect to hear that on the news though of course,

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @KIA

      The Japanese internment, you mean? Hopefully, it doesn’t come to that, but bringing a bunch of people into our country who don’t like us is asking for trouble. Because the attack on Pearl Harbor angered and frightened many, I expect FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps more for sake of their own safety. Whatever it is that followers of Shintoism believe, I have never heard of anything that Japanese Americans did to justify the internment of Japanese Americans.

      The Muslims visiting America? Well, it is quite easy for us to hate folks we don’t understand. And it is quite easy for us to misunderstand people if we cannot speak their language. In fact, if we have religious beliefs that teach us to detest those who do not share our beliefs, that tends to induce and justify hatred. Such is Islam, I fear.


      1. “I expect FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps more for sake of their own safety.” Actually, and I don’t mean to give you more reason to dislike FDR, it was entirely because FDR was racist. So was General DeWitt, the guy who came up with the idea.

        People enter the refugee program and normally get approved because they have family already living here. Not in a refugee status, but in some permanent status. The people who go through the 2+ year process don’t get into it and have their ENTIRE lives including the phone number they had when they were in college examined by a team of investigators who don’t have any pressing inclination to approve them. From my experience, the government agents in the process are the most unsympathizing bureaucrats I have ever met and I have met people from the Treasury department.


        1. @Stephen

          I think you are referring to the fact our law favors what some call chain immigration. I wish they would scrap that, but it does have one advantage. It puts people who are already citizens in the position of “vetting” newcomers. Still, I think the sponsors should be required to post a stiff bond. If the people they sponsor cannot support themselves or commit crimes or misdemeanors, they should forfeit that bond.


        2. Actually, how it works in the process is basically the authorities use it as an investigatory tool.

          For example, if you had two people where one had no family in the US and the other did, which would be easier to investigate? The latter has a family who you can investigate bank record, travel records, who they hang out with, what sort of car they drive, etc. The former has nothing but their contacts in their home country. Its not as if the family in the country mean they get an automatic pass. It is just one more avenue for investigators and it is a really good one.

          I can understand the logic of the bond system. It makes sense to have some sort of liability for sponsors of immigrants. To a certain extent, they have some liability. What you seem to be suggesting seems to be similar to the Roman client system. I must point out, however, that a misdemeanor speeding charge, for example, doesn’t seem particularly threatening to the public to warrant taking money from already impoverish people. In fact, you could do another principle of your’s a disservice because you could force some families that were able to support themselves prior to the having to pay the bond but then have to get on government assistance to pay it. In that way, you would be working against yourself.


  3. Not a Trump Supporter or one who voted for him, but I agree with what you said. The Federal governments primary responsibility is to “provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare” of the United States. Secure borders and making sure we protect ourselves from Islamic terrorists who want to kill us is key. -kia

    Liked by 1 person

    1. So why not ban people from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan where we KNOW terror groups operate and send operatives to the US?


        1. So we can exonerate Obama for abiding by the Bush directed deadline for pulling out of Iraq?

          Also, if you are talking about the 2015 travel restrictions on the visa waiver system, then the difference is absolutely apparent as the Obama administration added steps to the process for certain countries while the Trump administration has completely frozen the process. Note that the DHS report did not advise what Trump has done, but I doubt that will likely make news.


        2. Ah, the exit before the realization you didn’t do much research. I know it well. I am sorry you didn’t research the issue well enough.


        3. Your argument is a strawman. You don’t really want Saudi Arabia on that list, now do you? Y9ure being dishonest. I refused to play your game. Simple enough.


        4. If there is to be a list for the reasons provided, then Saudi Arabia should logically be on it. Since it is not, then it is obvious that the real reason this executive order is in place is to bar refugees, plain and simple.

          Look, I am not unreasonable. If the president thought barring people from countries that harbored terrorists was a good idea and then barred all of them, including Saudi Arabia that exports as much if not more radicalism as Iran does, then I would be less concerned about it. I would certainly argue the plight of the refugee, but it would be with the knowledge that we are truly balancing national security concerns with our entry policies. In other words, I would disagree but I would certainly give him the benefit of the doubt and it would merely be a conflict of opinion. He has one way and I have another.

          The current policy enacted by Trump is inadequate for me to give him this benefit of the doubt. It does not posses the logic necessary to address correctly our national security threats. The absence of other state sponsors of terror–you know, like Egypt that introduced the UN resolution denouncing Israel while the Saudis have been propping up Hamas–in the ban is inconsistent with the stated goal and can only logically lead to an ulterior motive i.e. barring refugees, not terrorists.

          In fact, I think that the US has been FAR too kind to the Saudis who have been exporting radical Islamism elsewhere in the globe, not just to Islamic countries but to the West as well. The Saudis don’t like the Islamic State not because it threatens their existence but because it threatens their ambitions. When almost every radical cleric that inspires people to go blow themselves up for Jihad is coming from Saudi schools, then I think we really need to assess where the real dangers are: refugees or the ideological colonization of the most radical forms of Islam on the planet.

          Ironically, I believe there should be a ban and that it should be on the Saudis. They hate democracy, America, and every other regime except their’s. Why we have tolerated their human rights abuses and bank rolling of terror groups for this long is beyond me.


      1. Although I find it curious and possible disingenuous for someone to disagree with the ban in general and at the same time argue why a different country wasn’t on the list…
        Sorry, not taking the bait to fight a hypothetical and dishonest argument


        1. Because the ban is not about terror. It is about refugees. I disagree with the ban and underscore my disagreement by pointing out that the ban does nothing practical to combat terror, only stoke fear in the voting base.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Reblogged this on The Recovering Know It All and commented:
    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


  5. it is indeed better late than never…as there are countless numbers of families scattered about our globe who are having to figure out how to live and love without those they love as the loved ones were the victims of “jihad”—be it from outright organized terror groups or the radicalized lone wolves—these “jihadists” must finally be put on notice—or the soft targets will remain soft and unprotected while politicians and lawmakers are left standing like deer in headlights scratching their heads….
    I feel as if administrations past and present are each aware of worldly “troubles”—most often where they originate and where they are percolating…but it’s a matter of as you say Tom, acting now or never….turning the blind eye and hoping for the best…
    Our current president is not conventional.
    He was voted into office in large part due to his not being the typical same ol same ol conventional politician…because those types of leaders have demonstrated time and time again an inability to act…to put their money where their mouth was and to finally do those things that need doing.
    Washington and lawmakers are all largely stale and the each the same no matter the label behind their name, as they come in and out of office all riding the same Merry-go-round…
    Candidate Donald Trump was this maverick who was not afraid to ruffle the conventional feathers and said things that the average little person has felt stifled to think, feel or express—be that good or bad….
    now President Trump is the result of such…so when he does what he said he would, as in act on those things that got him elected in the first place, why everyone is now shocked, is a bit puzzling.
    and as we have seen here—President Trump didn’t just pull names of nations randomly out of a hat…there is good reason these nations were highlighted …

    Now, if this new nontypical president can stay his own course that he charted early on is yet to be seen, but for the sake of Western Civilization, I hope he can….

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Julie (aka Cookie)

      Great comment!

      I have a rather negative opinion of most our current crop of leaders. We have elected people whose primary skills are posturing and buying our votes. These people take irrational positions because of their foolish pride and their insane desire for power.

      We elected Trump in desperation, not out of any great wisdom. Because Trump just says what he thinks, he sounds more sane than the “politically correct”.

      Can Trump succeed? Not by himself. We have to pray for God’s help, and we have to demonstrate our faith in God by helping the man. Otherwise, they will find an excuse to remove him from office.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Perhaps you can explain to me, CT, why Saudi Arabia (where the 11th of Sept. terrorists hailed from) isn’t 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?


    1. @john zande

      I won’t promise a debate. I will busy today, but this question amuses me.

      I heard some Democrat politician from Michigan make the same point when he was being interviewed on FOX. As best I remember, the interviewer came back with this response: “Would you approve of the list if Saudi Arabia were added to it?” Of course, that Democrat swiftly rejected that idea.

      After the 11th of September, the amazing thing is we still want Muslims coming into our country. If we did not have a Christian heritage that requires us to see the image of God in everyone, how likely would that be?

      We have a cooperative arrangement with Saudi Arabia’s security people. We can actually vet the people coming from there.


      1. “We can actually vet the people coming from there.”

        People like Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez? Or Syed Rizwan Farook? I mean, Farook’s LIVED in Saudi Arabia.The Saudi response? Denial. Farook went to Saudi Arabia several times where he is said to have gotten in contact with the Al-Nursa Front, ISIL and other terror groups. These groups actively operate in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and DEFINITELY Pakistan and we KNOW that terrorists come from THESE countries into the US, but they are left off the ban.


        1. @Stephen

          You are preaching to the choir. I would be perfect happy banning immigration from predominantly Muslim nations. Until a nation honestly permits freedom of religion, I have no problem excluding immigration from that country.


        2. Did you know that accepting freedom of religion is a litmus question under the refugee system? I did. Whether the regimes they are fleeing from support it is not really the issue, but whether they support it. I mean, would you say that because Obama supported socialized medicine then all Americans do?


  7. OK, it seems you are censoring.

    To be expected in Trump’s America, I guess. He has gagged federal agencies from speaking publically, hasn’t he, so you’re just towing that same line.

    Censorship, gag orders, Alernative Facts… Impressive stuff.

    I’m sure its going to end well.


  8. “Frankly, since the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims, and those terrorists are trying to kill us in the name of Islam, it is about religion.”

    The Tsarnaev brothers were primarily motivated by Dagastani/Chechen separatism.

    What you fail to address is that this ban is NOT against the one nation that we KNOW not only has harbored terrorists in the past, funneled money to them while we were fighting them, but BANK ROLLED the 9/11 hijackers: Saudi Arabia.

    “He just picked countries countries that are hotbeds of terrorism, and he used a list provided by former President Barack Obama.” No, he picked the one’s that don’t have any resorts. The Emirates has tons of extremists but he can’t risk Trump Dubai, now can he?

    This isn’t about vetting. We vet people fine. We aren’t going to end up like Europe because, well, we are guarded by two oceans. Terrorists, unsurprisingly, don’t come through a refugee program that takes AT LEAST two years to get permission to board a plane. Even then, if even one document is missing, you fall back to previous step in the process and you have to start all over again.

    That is why refugees who fought and bled with us in Iraq, who helped us take down the Sadaam regime, who risked their lives and their families and their livilihoods to help us and are now persona non grata in their own homes, are being sent back to die at the hands of the same terrorists they helped us fight. We abandoned them. Trump abandoned them. And for what? To satisfy the fears of a few hundred white people with nothing better to do but read fanatic articles by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer? Yeah, pro-life party my foot.

    “How do we vet people from nations in chaos?” With difficulty and tenacity. The fact that you even ask the question and display a massive ignorance of the facts just goes to show that Trump’s propaganda machine is working well. Sean “Squealer” Spicer seems to have convinced you that, indeed, some men are more equal than others.

    “When Muslim nations that are at “peace” already send us terrorists, why would we want to take refugees from nations we know are full of active and rabidly dangerous, murderous terrorists?” You mean like Saudi Arabia and Egypt who have officials actively thwarting the investigations of our operatives? In some cases, it is easier for us to vet people from a war torn country like Syria; no one is actively trying to hide criminal records since they all have better things to do. And don’t say there are no records. The GOP Congress already debunked that in their hearings on this very subject.

    So the countries with dangerous, rabid terrorists AREN’T on the list. Besides, why would they suddenly leave their area of operations i.e. the place where they are trying to gain ground and go to America when they can radicalize our own citizens from a distance? Noticed how a) all the domestic terrorists recently have been born here and b) that they get into the terror camps from countries that ARE NOT ON THE BAN LIST?

    Call it for what it is. This isn’t about security. It isn’t really about Muslims. This is about refugees and fulfilling the stupid and frankly bigoted promise to punish the innocent to please the crowd by refusing refugees. Its about refusing refugees. It has always been about refusing refugees, not security and not religion. It is the Flavian Amphitheater and Trump has given the thumbs down. It is merely advancing the culture of death a few more paces towards societal degradation.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @Stephen

      Your comment is riddled with nonsense. I know what people can do with statistics. The vast majority of terrorism this days is committed in the name of Islam.

      This statement is laughable.

      The Tsarnaev brothers were primarily motivated by Dagastani/Chechen separatism.

      So they are murdering people in Boston, most of whom know almost nothing about Dagastani/Chechen separatism? What’s the point?

      Did Trump abandon the people who helped us in Iraq? No. He has asked the Pentagon to put together a list, which, apparently, the Pentagon did not already have. I wonder why.

      Anyway, I have better things to do than to untangle an ill-considered comment. I will just observe one more thing. You want to attack Trump for not putting other Muslim countries on the list? You think adding those nations would improve the list? Me too!


      1. Actually, it is not. But don’t take my word for it; check out the reports from Interpol or the FBI. Globally, separestist movements account for a greater number of terror attacks with left wing/communist terror coming in second. The miscellaneous terror attacks come in before Islamic. Again, Interpol, Europol, the FBI, and numerous other organizations who watch terror groups professionally have numbers for you to see.

        I mean, you can create alternative facts if you want, but the Tsarnaevs themselves stated their intentions in the manifestos they left behind. Dagastani/Chechen separatism is partially Islamic to be sure and the Tsarnaevs claimed that the attacks were in retribution for attacks the US did in Afghanistan.

        To better understand how Dagestan and Chechnya relate to Afghanistan would take many hours and involve complex historical and political facts, including the role of the Soviet Union in causing some of the rise of Islamic Nationalism. Suffice to say, with the dissolution of the Soviet empire, the Chechens and Dagestanis wanted out of the Russian Federation. They were supported by Al-Qaeda partly because of their Isalmism and mostly because they wanted a foothold in the territory of their old enemy reborn in a weaker form i.e. Russia. So the Tsarnaevs primary goal was separatism. The insurgency operations in Afghanistan weakened Al-Qaeda support of the Caucasus Emirate and effectively ended hope for an independent Caucasus.

        Trump DID with his poorly crafted and poorly executed EO. He gave no time for DHS and other agencies tasked with protecting us to enforce the order. After a few days of backlash, he realized he banned people who helped us.

        The list itself is arbitrary and could really only correspond to two things: Trump’s business interests which I am less inclined to accept or populist demands which I am more likely to accept.

        Lyman Stone has a very good analysis and, while I may not agree with all his solutions, his research is spot on. Also, it is a conservative source so you can’t accuse it of being “ill-considered.” He shares many of the same concerns as I do and he alleviated some of mine, such as the business connection. The picture he paints is not very good though; mostly it seems to him that this EO was slapped together with little thought.



        1. @Stephen

          Good grief! Okay, I am sold, we should freeze immigration from anywhere and everywhere.

          Your link is silly. It begins by asserting Trump snuffed out a reasonable debate on immigration. He is just doing what he was elected to do. We have had the debate. It is over! He won the debate, and somebody is finally doing what he promised to do.


        2. First time I have heard a professed conservative bash The Federalist. What’s next? National Review?

          He won 30% of the GOP vote. There was no real debate until the debate was over. The media covered his outlandish proposals instead of the more sensible and prudent ones. Even Cruz had a better plan than this reactionary executive fiat. He used the media’s horror about his various outbursts against them to shroud any real, substantive discussion about immigration or any other policy point for that matter. What was Rick Perry’s position on things? No one knows because Trump dominated the news cycle with a wall that the American taxpayer is going to 100% fund.

          You don’t need to defend the indefensible just because he is the de facto head of your party.


        3. @Stephen


          It is a news magazine, not the Gospel. We have millions of people in this country, and we put all kinds of labels upon ourselves.

          You are never going to be happy with Donald Trump’s immigration policy. So he is not suppose to implement it? Doesn’t work that way.


        4. He can implement it; he has that power. I am just not going to shut up and sit by while a travesty of human decency occurs and gets lauded for its brilliance. I didn’t do it for the past 8 years and I won’t do it for however long he can walk the delicate tight rope he now walks.


        5. And still your argument for why this EO is the best thing since sliced bread–hyperbole, I know–is simply because you get to stick it to those darn Muslims.

          Incidentally, I like the SCOTUS pick. He has a long history of preserving religious freedom.


        6. @Stephen

          And you are not a Socialist Liberal Democrat? Still, you get around to accusations of bigotry, and that’s their MO.

          If I were trying “stick it to those darn Muslims,” I would propose nuking the Muslim nations. Keeping Islamist terrorists out of the country just helps to keep them from sticking it to us.

          There is an old anti-drug commercial that has us imagine ourselves sitting on the ledge of a tall building while handcuffed to a drug addict. When I hear it, I think of people who insist that everyone else must assume their warped view of the world.

          You want to see things your way? No problem. I am compelled to object when you try to pull me over a cliff with you.

          You like Trump’s pick? Maybe I should give him a second look.


        7. “And you are not a Socialist Liberal Democrat?” Well, as I have said before, since I reject their central premises, I cannot be considered one. They certainly don’t like me and have told me so quite strongly.

          “Still, you get around to accusations of bigotry, and that’s their MO.” If the glove fits. Are you saying you didn’t say you would prefer a ban on all Muslim countries?

          “I would be perfect happy banning immigration from predominantly Muslim nations.” –Citizen Tom

          “…I would propose nuking the Muslim nations.” Because nothing says Christianity like indiscriminately slaughtering people.

          I take it the moral of the commercial was to let the addict jump off the roof while you get away?

          “…I think of people who insist that everyone else must assume their warped view of the world.” Coming from the guy who pigeonholes people who disagree with him into categories that don’t make sense and won’t shift from them no matter how much philosophy you explain.


        8. @Stephen

          Don’t you reek of hypocrisy? Who brought up all those other Muslim nations we should be banning?

          I have read most of the Koran. I got so disgusted with it I stopped. It does not take a genius to realize that a large percentage of the Muslim population, especially those in predominately Muslim nations, see little or no wrong in persecuting non-Muslims. Many, in fact, would consider it virtuous. That’s how their so-called prophet spread their religion.

          Am I a bigot just because I think that what people believe makes a difference? If I were a Jew and I heard my next door neighbor call himself a Nazi, should I ignore that?


        9. ‘Don’t you reek of hypocrisy?” Tis human nature I guess.

          “Who brought up all those other Muslim nations we should be banning?” I don’t see how that is hypocrisy. I have explained at length that just because I point out the illogical move of arbitrarily banning these seven nations “cuz terrorists” does not mean that I have to agree with the order in general. That is illogical and frankly dishonest.

          “I have read most of the Koran. I got so disgusted with it I stopped.” You must have read the bit Richard Spencer and Pamela Geller fed you through JihadWatch. In any case, reading bit of the Quran doesn’t somehow make you an expert on Islam like it seems reading the Bible makes you Pope these days. I mean, if you were honestly and sincerely trying to understand it rather than confirm your biases, then you would have learned the original Arabic because there is no debate in the Islamic world that translations of the Quran are not authoritative but there is intense debate as to whether translations are actually the Quran.

          “It does not take a genius to realize that a large percentage of the Muslim population, especially those in predominately Muslim nations, see little or no wrong in persecuting non-Muslims.” No, it just takes a refusal to see the facts. Turkey has a large Muslim population. During the late Ottoman Empire until now–so long as you weren’t Armenian–Christians and Jews enjoyed not only religious freedom but a large degree of autonomy with the ability to manage their own communities.

          Indonesia has the largest Muslim population and also some of the most tolerant religious laws. Unlike countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, you are not taken to court for leaving Islam. There is certainly sectarian violence but that cannot be reduced solely to religion. A lot of it is ethnic and cultural.

          You have said elsewhere that you don’t have time to look up my obscure examples, but these are not obscure; this is history and it is fact.

          “Many, in fact, would consider it virtuous.” Actually, the Islamic schools in Indonesia–which you should have studied when you read the Quran–reject this view and issued fatwas against violence as a means of conversion.

          “That’s how their so-called prophet spread their religion.” This only betrays your ignorance about how Islam works. There were and are Christian groups that believe that they are God’s soldiers and that they are backed up by Scripture in their quest to abolish the current government and establish a theocracy. But maybe you haven’t read much about Dominionists and Reconstructionists. They only have about two million members in various groups across the US. My point is not that Christianity is somehow just as violent as Islam or whatever. You are going to accuse me of it anyway so I don’t know why I bothered saying anything except to point out that, demographically, these people claiming to be Christian are analogous to those people claiming to be Muslim from the mainstream Islamic perspective.

          For example, when I ask my neighbor–because I actually have neighbors who are Muslim while I don’t think you see many in Bristow or Gainesville, or Prince William in general except in maybe Woodbridge–about Sharia Law, I get long discussions about diet, clothing, banking, holidays, etc. There is a reason why Catholic Canon Law programs include Islamic and Jewish religious law in their programs; out of all the world’s religions, these are the three religions that actually have bodies of laws governing religious behavior. There is a lot of overlap and borrowings and similarities and differences.

          Those portions of Sharia that deal with punishment are, at least to my neighbor, not very important. To his school–and to most schools of Islamic thought which you REALLY need to read up on if you want to have this discussion–those punishments can’t be implemented properly without a truly Islamic government i.e. a Caliph. The last Caliph was the Ottoman Sultan and even his legitimacy is disputed even in the Sunni schools. So without a legitimate Caliph–see any biological descendants of Muhammad around?–the punishments are used mainly by dictators that the people most effected by this order are fleeing from. But, you know, let’s ignore that fact. Who wants to consider that these people have little to no reason to want the government they are trying to get away from in the country they are going to? I mean, remember all the East Germans and Cubans coming over trying to implement communist rule in West Germany and America??

          “Am I a bigot just because I think that what people believe makes a difference?” I never called you one, but it is wrong to bar people who need our help from our country because you read some of their holy text and didn’t understand it because you likely have little to no experience reading and understanding 7th century Middle Eastern texts. As St. Augustine said in De Doctrina Christiana, you cannot blame the text if you do not understand it and you cannot judge a people based on your misunderstanding of their text.

          “If I were a Jew and I heard my next door neighbor call himself a Nazi, should I ignore that?” Better analogy would be that your neighbor said he was German and you assumed, based on his Germanness, that he was a Nazi.

          Liked by 1 person

  9. Over the weekend I took the time to read this executive order from first word to last word. It contains a lot of provisions that its opponents are failing to acknowledge. This is a temporary order with deadlines imposed while a more efficient and equitable policy is created. Government executives are given specific responsibility to study it and improve it. Case-by-case exceptions to this policy are permitted–almost encouraged. I wonder how many of the people protesting this order are trusting their news sources to tell them what it really says rather than reading it for themselves. J.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. As a practical matter, Trump’s executive order is a solution to no know problem. In fact, all it does is exacerbate the situation for our troops on the ground fighting alongside Iraqis and Syrians and make their situation more dangerous while at the same time supplyimg a new propaganda tool for ISIS recruiting here in the US AND abroad. In fact, the only practical thing that Trump’s order actually does is throw red meat at his base who already fear and hate the people from these countries people based only on their religion, race and ethnicity.

    And that’s why Trump did it. Not because it practically helps keep us safer, and in spite of the fact that it will actually make us less safe. Like any expert demagogue, Trump knows that hate and fear are his best tools to rally his supporters and cower the opposition in his own party. That this executive order has no other practical value and is inherently destructive to our actual efforts against terrorism was aptly demonstrated by the fact that no actual Trump strategic or security policy maker was assigned to defend its ridiculousness on any of the Sunday morning talk shows. Instead, the Trump administration trotted out their usual dissembling political propagandists who know next to nothing about national defense or homeland security. On the other hand, the strongest voice opposing the ban as counterproductive to defense and security was an actual expert policy maker, Senator John McCain.

    Aside from the fact that the only practical reason for Trump’s order was to politically pander to his base, from a Christian religious standpoint, Trump’s order is only defensible if one willfully ignores a good bit of what Jesus actually said about welcoming the stranger and helping the oppressed. Catholic Church and other Christian denomination leaders are already making this case better than I can so I will simply refer you to their statements which are readily available in the news and online. I did find it sadly serendipitous that the main Gospel reading this Sunday at every Catholic Church was the Beatitudes.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Aside from the fact that the only practical reason for Trump’s order was to politically pander to his base, from a Christian religious standpoint, Trump’s order is only defensible if one willfully ignores a good bit of what Jesus actually said about welcoming the stranger and helping the oppressed.”

      I don’t wish to be impolite but this is really a distortion of scripture. Lets look at 1 Timothy 5:8 or Galatians 6:10. The bible is plumb full of verses that remind us to take care of our own first, to look after our own household, to tend to the Body of Christ first and foremost, to care for our own wives,our own children, our own communities.

      Then there is the added issue of how best to look out for refugees, is it loving to insist they all be taken out of their culture, drug halfway across the world, forced to assimilate themselves into Western culture? Is that respectful? Our tiny town has been fighting to bring refugees here and my first thought is, we have no jobs, no housing, a rampant meth and heroin trade, and some of the highest suicide rates in the country. Our schools are crap, and our regulations so burdensome it is nearly impossible to start a business. We are not thinking about what is best for refugees here at all, we are like crazy cats ladies who just care, so, so much,and wish to rescue all the strays.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Insanitybites22- You never seem to be impolite. It’s one of the things I most admire about you. You make a good point, and I see the truth in it, but I’m just not sure how it actually applies to the Trump executive order in question. If also begs a good many questions.

        First, if we are so poor and jobless that we cannot afford to take in desperate strangers from war torn countries, then should not all immigration from all countries, be stopped? I mean, if the purpose of Trump’s order is to stop immigration until we have perfected our own material security, then it really does not do that, does it? So your scriptural sites really don’t give any specific defense to this particular Trump executive order, do they? And why did Trump carve out the exception for minority refugees (in other words, nonMuslims, particularly Christians)?

        Second, whereas I completely agree that we should not be purposefully sending these desperate refugees to our poorest and most jobless communities who need to spend their public resources on their own folks, was Trump’s order really designed to stop that practice, if it even exists somewhere? For example, in my home city, we have a large population of Somali refugees who fled that awful place. Joblessness is not a problem here, but we do have the usual urban problems of crime, drug addiction and homelessness. However, the root causes of those problems have not been exacerbated by these refugees. In fact, they seem to be the least likely population to commit crimes and become addicted to drugs.

        Finally, we are the richest nation with some of the richest States and local communities on earth. How materially wealthy does a predominately Christian nation full of predominately Christian communities have to be before its citizens are obliged to follow Jesus’ many teachings regarding extending a helping hand to the desparate stranger. Where in the Bible does it say to actually banish such strangers in need? I understand your practical concerns, but it would seem that, notwithstanding some extreme imbalance, the spiritual responsibilities that Jesus commands should trump perfect material security, don’t you think? Was Jesus really saying that we should be Good Samaritans only when we risk absolutely nothing?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. @Tony

          In your first note, you began by attacking Trump and the people who support him. Insanitybites22 forced you to look at the issue itself, and that is where you should have started. Just because Trump issued the order does not make it wrong.

          Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. What if I make the issue Democrats? It is fairly obvious that the reason Democrats politicians are wild about immigrants, especially poor, uneducated immigrants, is that they can buy their votes.

          You think Jesus would approve vote buying? Based upon what? A feeling?

          We may be a rich nation, but we are still just a small percentage of the world’s population. If we want to stay free, we have to make certain the people who vote here understand how we became a free people and how to stay free. Thus, flooding our nation with immigrants and not insisting that become loyal Americans is suicidal.

          Nevertheless, do Democrats really respect our heritage? Is it not commonplace for Democrats to either to twist the words or to denigrate the character of the men who founded this country. For example, Democrats both castigate Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves and cite his letter to the Danbury Baptists as some kind of proof for the wall of separation of church and state. Ironically, since Jefferson helped to start the Democratic Party, it is Conservatives who have the most respect for his contributions to our nation.

          Frankly, instead of using every opportunity you get to attack Trump, you might want to consider the integrity of the company you are keep.

          Still, I will admit my attack on Democrats did not address the problem. Was Trump’s executive order a good or a bad idea? Did I prove anything by attacking the nefarious motives of Democrat politicians? Well, you really should consider the company you are keeping


      2. You said, “We are not thinking about what is best for refugees here at all, we are like crazy cats ladies who just care, so, so much,and wish to rescue all the strays.”

        I have a simple question: Would you feel the same if you were one of those strays? (Mark 12:31)


        1. @orthocursion

          Do you understand what a crazy cat lady might be? It seems not. So I have a more complicated question.

          What if you had so many stray cats you could not feed them or care for them.Nevertheless, you refused to stop collecting them.

          What if you also had small children, including an infant? Do you really think it would be safe to raise your precious children in house full of flea infested and starving cats?

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Regarding the response to the “cat lady”…I actually do know what a crazy cat lady is. Such a person lived in the same building as I did years ago.

          But you have sidestepped my question. Would you maintain your position on refugees if you were one of them? I assume you want to “keep what you have” and stay “safe” behind a locked door, yes. That is a very reasonable position, but, I would suggest, it necessarily presents a dilemma IF you truly belief the Bible, particularly the Mark passage we all know…and try to avoid.


        3. @orthocursion

          I did not sidestep your question. It is very clear you did not misunderstand my answer. It is also clear you do not understand the Bible.

          We are suppose to be charitable, not suicidal. We are suppose to take care of those of whom we are responsible first. Then we help the stranger.

          Look at the examples of charity in the Bible. The Jews first took care of the people closest to them. After they had taken care of their family, friends, neighbors, and countrymen, the Lord expected them to provide for the stranger. Much the same is expected of Christians. In fact, when the Apostle Paul went seeking donations, he did so for needy Christians.

          There is also another consideration. Our government is not intended to provide for charity. Whenever it does get into that business, we usually see too many examples of corruption. The problems we are having with our immigration system are just absurd.


        4. I am deeply sorry if I have missed your answer. The question was: Would you feel the same if you were one of those strays (refugees or immigrants)? (Mark 12:31 – “Love your neighbor as yourself”). I read and reread your two responses and I still have not heard an answer to this question.

          The question only requires a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. It is not a question about protection, rationalizing a position nor defending the actions of a government. The question is about you as an individual. You know the answer. So do I. The difficulty which follows in the wake of the answer is truly difficult, but necessary for us to wrestle with, seeking to define ourselves. You suggest that we are to be charitable, not suicidal. Are you really that afraid? Suicidal? What happened to faith? But I suppose that is what Peter asked when he denied Christ.

          Our strength as Christians should be faith, sometimes radical faith in God, not in borders. Sadly, few of us have the courage to express such faith. We fear loss. We fear violence. And yet is that not what radical faith must require? The government has its own answers involving laws and coercion. Christians should have different, human-based responses. Unfortunately, for us, we in this rich, highly protected country we call the land of the free, we who have chosen to wall ourselves in, leave manna rotting on the ground.

          You need not respond. I see you now. Thank you for the conversation.

          I will pray for you and us all—including Muslims.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. @orthocursion

          I have no problem admitting some things frighten me. God gave me that emotion for my own good.

          Faith is not stupidity. I believe in Jesus because I have very practical reasons to do. Faith is not a feeling. It is trusting in someone or something we have reason to trust.

          When someone cannot swim, do we teach them to swim by telling them to have faith and then push them into water that is over their head in depth? Well, some silly people do, I suppose, but it is not a good idea. Similarly, we don’t deal carelessly with refugee problems and just assume Jesus will provide.

          How refugees “feel” about the matter is not relevant to my position. It is relevant to your position, apparently, but your position is not my position. So answering your question is pointless.

          And yes, when people deliberately and needlessly risk the lives of their family, friends, neighbors, and countrymen because they “feel” they are doing the right thing that scares me. You are that afraid of giving offense to people you know almost nothing about? Then you have the nerve to speak of my fear?

          There is another problem. As you said. This is a rich country, and the idiots we have been electing to run it think it is their job to spend our money buying votes. No wealthy country with an extravagant welfare state can survive open borders, and it silly to pretend otherwise.


    2. @Tony

      Red meat to the base? To people like me? Well, I would like to be fed more such meat. You must be a squeamish, ultrasophisticated vegan. I am just a meat and potatoes guy. Well, actually I prefer pork and chicken. Potatoes too.

      Senator John McCain is an actual expert policy maker? Well, if throwing other Republicans to ravening Democrats for the sake of free liberal news media coverage is expert policy, then both he and Senator Lindsey Graham are definitely experts.

      Stop and think. Consider the OBVIOUS. Trump’s ban is designed to keep TERRORISTS out of our country. If the people fighting with us in the Middle East don’t think those TERRORISTS are bad news (ISIS and those of the same ilk kill more Muslims than anyone else.) and worth keeping out of one’s country, why should we care? They are nuts!

      Because Christians love their family, friends, and neighbors, we don’t frivolously risk their lives and justify it with careless references to scripture. You want to help the folks in the Middle East? Don’t bring them here. Encourage our government to help establish order there.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ha! At least you admit that the actual purpose of Trump’s EO is only satisfying the carnivorous appetites of his most rabid supporters. 😏

        “Still, I will admit my attack on Democrats did not address the problem.”

        This statement kind of says it all. My first post on this was not an “attack” on Trump. It was a criticism of Trump’s EO. You have said nothing here that actually addresses how Trump’s EO actually has made us safer. That is because it obviously doesn’t. You still have not responded to the very specific reasons why by this EO Trump has actually made us less safe, has made our military’s efforts to solve the problem at the source more difficult and has put our service members’ lives in more jeopardy.

        “Because Christians love their family, friends, and neighbors, we don’t frivolously risk their lives and justify it with careless references to scripture.”

        Ok, I’m willing to learn at the feet of your claimed superior scriptural wisdom. Please explain to me how Trump’s EO does not violate Jesus’ commandment to love your neighbor, and specifically, the mandate to love and aid the foreign stranger that is implied by the Good Samaritan parable and the passages leading up to it? Rather than attack the integrity of the leaders of my church in this regard, please reference how your exegesis on this is superior to theirs. You might start by answering the questions that I posed to Insanitybites, specifically my questions as to whether we are to be like the Good Samaritan only when the stranger is not of a different culture, race, religion or race, as was the Good “Samaritan” would have been to the Jews, and show me how the overall spirit of the Gospel is that we Christians are only to aid the desparate stranger when it poses no material cost or risk to us? I’m honestly baffled at how this is not obvious to the Christian. It seems the reason why Christianity is not today some obscure offshoot of Judiasm to which only the members of the chosen tribes of Israel could belong, but instead a worldwide Body of Christ where peoples of all cultures, races, ethnicities, and religions are welcomed and loved. Don’t just belittle me and the Christian leaders who interpret scripture differently. Explain to me how, under the law of love that is at the sacrificial heart of Jesus’ teachings and actions, this specific EO promotes what is The Word of God made flesh in Jesus?

        Here are a few other problems with this EO:

        1. It is a fiat from the president without even consulting the Congressional Chairmen of the key committees involved. For example, Republican Senator Corker, the head of the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee, first found out about this EO when he read about it on the news. When President Obama made similar laws via EO, Republicans such as yourself claimed a breach of constitutional powers, and in some cases successfully sued. Where is your outrage now?

        2. This goes to simple leadership competence. Trump did not even consult his own department heads who must defend and implement the EO. The nominated Secretary of State, the current Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Defense all found out about the EO as Trump was signing it. The acting head of the Justice Department refused to defend the order in court and had to be fired. No implementation policies were therefore written and this resulted in a good deal of confusion and uncertainty at our airports and embassies around the world. The Whitehouse is constantly having to backtrack and clarify this ill conceived order. These are not just unintended bad consequences. They are unintended bad consequences that were predictable and could have been predicted and resolved had the order been competently vetted and implemented by the people that any decent leader should have naturally consulted. Imagine the Republican outrage if Obama sent out an EO without such vetting and with such implementation chaos?

        3. Related to this incompetence issue is the whole idea of setting presidential policy by campaign bumper sticker that is represented in this EO and several others Trumo has signed. Sloganeering and Jingoism may be nice to incite his fans at a rally, but Trump’s ignorant shoot-from-the-hip issuing of laws of the land this way is damaging to the long term goals of our most important institutions. It’s not only imperial, it’s a dumb way to govern.


        1. @Tony

          Actually all you did is attack Trump. I just made the point I could attack Democrats and then we would both be talking pass the issue. Are we trying to solve a problem or just gore each others favorite thickheaded politicians.

          There are two issues.
          1. Why would we want to flood our nation with refugees?
          2. To the extent we cannot avoid bringing refugees into our nation, how do we decide which refugees do we allow into our country?

          Issue 1: You keep pointing to Jesus and the Bible to justify flooding the country with refugees. Shrug.

          The Good Samaritan is one parable. It is not the entire Bible. You want to be personally charitable like that Good Samaritan? That’s fine. He pull money out of his own purse, and Jesus approved. What he did not do is for anyone else to participate in his charity. He did not have the right, and you don’t either.

          We have a government of the United States, not a world government. We don’t have a theocracy. We have a secular government that exists to defend the rights of our people, not the rights of the entire world. When our secular government allows people into our country, including refugees, then it should do so because it serves the best overall interests of the people of the United States.

          Does that sound harsh? Well, it is not. You don’t want to be the world’s policeman for basically the same reason. Just as pointless wars weaken our nation so does trying to bring in bunches of refugees. It costs to much to put all those people on welfare. It is disruptive to our public school system. It is something we should do only when the alternative is to watch people die. Even knowing people were dying and would die has not stopped politicians who just wanted to stay out of a messy situation that did not involve U.S. national interests (including Bill Clinton).

          What is different now? Have our politicians suddenly become more noble? No. Democrats in particular just see poor immigrants as people whose votes they can buy.

          Issue 2: Generally we should do our best to make certain the people we allow into our nation will make good citizens. So we want immigrants who can speak English, have needed job skills, and with no criminal record.

          To vet applicants for immigration, we have to have a good working relationship with the government of the country of origin. Otherwise, we have no way of getting good information.

          Summary: We don’t agree on the first issue. Why? I am not going to speculate on your motives, but mine just put America first.

          We don’t agree on the second issue. Why? Do you care whether we vet these refugees?

          I have heard Democrats with great authority and firmness state that we already have a good vetting process in place, that it takes two years or four years for refugees to get into our nation. What these Democrats prove is how well they can lie with authority.

          If don’t have a good working relationship with the country of origin we have no way of learning the background of an immigrant applying to get into our country. Vetting with without a reliable data source is useless.

          You disagree? Then stop posing questions about the Bible. You already have answers, and you have ignored them. Please explain how our government is suppose to vet people if it doesn’t have a trustworthy source of data about applicants for immigration.

          Note: If it takes two years or more to process a refugee applying to get into our nation, then where is the emergency?

          Your other problems:
          1. Trump ran with the understanding he would reverse Obama Executive Order and put a stop on immigration from terrorists nations. Thus, he consulted the people of our nation. Moreover, he has not done anything without precedent. Also note that Trump is now our CINC. Protecting our borders is his primary responsibility.

          2. The news media made mountains of molehills. Anything can be criticized, and everything looks easier in hindsight. All that happened is some people were delayed.

          3. You vote for Democrats — for King Obama with his pen and his phone — and you have the gall to say that? The truth is that Trump is more intelligent than either of us. Is he wise? I don’t know, but so far I am far happier with him than I would have been with that Democrat lady. What’s her name?


  11. in·con·ven·ience

    1. 1.
    trouble or difficulty caused to one’s personal requirements or comfort.

    I wonder if the personal difficulties and comfort of the travel victims of Trump’s temporary ban would want to trade their travel inconveniences with the inconvenience of the families of the dead and crippled victims of Islamic Terrorist Acts in Boston, Orlando, California, etc.?.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Tom –

    As for your issue 1.

    This is actually something that I learned from you. There is a difference between expecting your government not to advocate or favor a particular religion, including Christianity, and expecting your government to act in accordance with the universal beliefs of your religion, most montheistic religions and indeed, even the beliefs of virtuous atheists and pagans of all times. Virtuous unselfish action in helping the desparate stranger, without regard to his or her race, ethnicity or religion, is not just a Christian value – it has always been a basic American value.

    We don’t really have an ultra vires issue here because we both agree that immigration is the sole constitutional responsibility of the federal government. So what we Christians are asking is that our government only do what is virtuous and right. Most of the Syrian refugees are women and children. Many are Iraqis who aided the American military during the Iraq war and, as a result, now fear for their lives and the lives of their families. Some are here getting doctoral degrees at American universities so that they can go home and help their countries do better – don’t you think that these students when they graduate will pass on an amazing impression of American democracy to their fellow citizens, an impression that they will change their own country with. Some, like the Iraqi F-16 trainees, are coming here because we are allies in the war against terrorism. We need to be able to have travel and trade with our allies in this war against ISIS.

    I understand and sympathize with your practical considerations. I’ve got nothing against Trump’s extreme vetting (which we already do) or placing limits on what we can reasonably afford to do before we are hurting our own citizens. However, I am not talking about anything that we have not done before. We are all immigrants. Our own Irish ancestors were probably refugees from some famine or another.

    I’ll think about your issue 2 and respond later. I’m not really not interested in attacking or accusing anyone. I just have a very hard time seeing Trump’s actions as anything but self centered and demagogic. Honestly, don’t you also? The man is a walking, talking, all-about-me kind of guy. He not only does not hide it – he boasts constantly. I’m sure that some democrats are acting selfishly as well, but I disagree with you about buying votes. It seems to me that Muslims and Mexicans are natural conservative Republicans, if the Republicans were not making it so hard for them to be.


    1. “Virtuous unselfish action in helping the desparate stranger, without regard to his or her race, ethnicity or religion, is not just a Christian value – it has always been a basic American value.”

      Forgive my dark humor here, but I believe we actually slaughtered the Indians, forced quite a few Africans to “immigrate,” locked the dirty Irish down in immigration holding tanks, shut down Chinese labor, denied Jews asylum during the Holocaust, and rounded up the Japanese and put them in internment camps.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Exactly. And Trump’s EO is a reflection of that dark history that, was not in keeping with our highest American values or our Christian values. Don’t you agree?


        1. “And Trump’s EO is a reflection of that dark history that..”

          Actually, it’s more like a reflection of the dark history of his predecessor and a dem congress that actually voted on these things. In crazy upside down world, this is actually Obama’s list of dangerous countries, Obama’s concept of extreme vetting.

          Trump is pretty darn efficient, but he actually doesn’t have the power to act on policy that doesn’t already have a precedent, that hasn’t already gone before congress.

          Next up, Trump will start building a wall…..voted on, approved, and made law by congressional democrats in 2006. Some 64 members of the house, 23 in the senate, a law they opposed so much they actually voted for it and let it sit there for nearly a decade.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. @insanitybytes22

          Tony is a lawyer and a Democrat. To debate him, you have to force him to focus on the actual issue. Otherwise, he will run you round and round on whether the right words were used and whether they were said with the correct tone.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. Tom, after reviewing your Issue 2, I think that I addressed most of your concerns with my answer to your first issue. I do want to emphasize one point.

      You say that, if Christians want to be like the Good Samaritan, they should do it individually or as a church organization. Neither I nor my church, however, can take in a foreign refugee without the permission and support of the federal government. In fact, Pope Francis has ordered that Catholic Churches all over the world help Muslim refugees. And churches of all denominations are stepping up to help in accordance with true Christian virtues and values. Because this cannot happen without the federal government, we are only asking that the government also reflect these values that are, not only the highest Christian values, they are also the highest universal values.

      Many Christians have reacted vehemently when the government has forced them to promote abortion or birth control. Some of these cases are difficult because the line between what is peculiarly a religious denominational belief (such as when exactly the spiritual soul emplants in a human being or whether sex without the possibility of procreation is unnatural to God) and what is a universal American value is not always easy to draw. However, in the case of desparate refugees fleeing war, discrimination and famine, if the government prevents Christians from providing reasonably welcoming relief, then the government is actively preventing us from practicing, not just our most basic Christian values, but also these universal and American values.

      “Trump ran with the understanding he would reverse Obama Executive Order and put a stop on immigration from terrorists nations.”

      Surely, you recognize that this order does not just reverse President Obama’s lawful orders to take in a limited number of Syrian refugees. Trump’s EO is much broader than that and you know it. Trump is not just carrying out Congress’s immigration policy and laws, by his EO, Trump is making and implementing his own broad laws regarding American immigration, and without even consulting Congress or even the departments within his own administration who would best know how to draft and implement those laws within the overal strategic and security policies of our country. Trump’s EO is a chaotic of “fire, ready, aim” that helps our enemies and makes our allies think we are unstable and incompetent.

      Finally, I recognize that it is unchristian to not focus my criticism of Trump on what he actually says and what he does, rather than who he is personally. I find this difficult because his statements and actions are so blantantly glorifying of all the worst vices. (I also recognise that you have the same difficulty with Democrats such as President Obama). As far as making America great again, I don’t think that America’s worst problems are necessarily a lack of material goods, but a dearth of spirtual goods. Where we have poverty in material forms, such as high crime, high wealth inequality, and addiction, it is a more a reflection of that poverty of spiritual virtues and not because our nation is not materially wealthy. Trump is such a self proclaimed example of that poverty of moral virtues that I am mystified that you honor him so much. He is not making America great again. He is making us spiritually poorer.


  13. I just read in the news that international and domestic US airlines that have airline crews holding passports from the countries on Trump’s list have been particularly disrupted. They have had to check the countries of origin of all their flight attendants and pilots and take them off of flights to replace them with others. This has resulted in the cancellation of flights and both our international airlines and our domostic airlines that code share with international connections have suffered delays and increased costs.

    So Trump came up with a new regulation that violated another of his own new regulations. He did not get rid of two other similar regulations and the net cost of his regulation was definitely not zero.


  14. Insanitybites22 – I’m afraid that you are working off of false and misleading facts. I will refer you to this AP fact check published in The Seattle Times:


    Of course, you may not trust the AP’s facts and instead have some “alternate facts”. However, we can’t have much of a discussion if one of us is not living in reality and the other is living in an “alternate reality”.


    1. LOL! You wish to speak of “facts” now? And your “facts” are going to come from the Seattle Times, who insist their “facts” are good based on a series of tweets? Tweets?! Really?

      Somewhat amusing, but I am and always have been a huge fan of “alternate reality” and “alternative facts.” Like the “alternate facts” that suggested the polls were all wrong and Donald Trump was going to win the presidency. Or the “alternate reality” his detractors are now forced to reside in and come to terms with.

      So really, I am probably not the best person to lecture about “alternate realities.”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Actually the “facts” were from the AP which is a worldwide news service used by a very many newspapers. The AP’s credibility is key to its very existence. You don’t like the facts so you automatically shoot the messenger. That does not stop facts from being facts, now does it? The “tweets” came from the leader of the free world. Does his “tweeting” stupid, outrageous things somehow make them less outrageous or stupid?


        1. BTW, the polls were not completely wrong. Almost three million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. That is a fact. In any event, I can tell that you’re smart enough to know that there is a difference between a prediction with a margin of error and a current irrefutable fact.


  15. In the middle of the night recently, some nut in Texas burned a small local Mosque. I’m sure that most of the Christians on this site, and especially my good brother, Tom, would condemn such a hateful crime, so please don’t take my mentioning it as some sort of accusation.

    I bring it up only because of the amazing reaction to the hate crime. Someone started a crowd sourcing site that has already raised over a million dollars in donations to rebuild the mosque. The Rabbi of the local Jewish community immediately offered the use of their synagogue until the mosque could be rebuilt. When ask about this, the Rabbi said that they had a big synagogue with only a few Jews – it wasn’t really any inconvenience at all.

    Such stories can give us hope that love and compassion really is a more powerful force than hate and condemnation. These people who aided the Muslims in Texas are the modern day answer to Jesus’ question in Luke 10:36 of who is our neighbor? And asking our government not to outright banish desparate refugees is only trying fulfill Jesus’ command in Luke 10:37 to act with loving mercy just as the Good Samaritan acted.

    We seem to have so many good Christian experts on scripture here. Many, like Tom, have tried to say that the Good Samaritan story is not apposite to this executive ban for a variety of reasons. Tom has said that the Good Samaritan story is just one part of the Bible, and that somehow Jesus’ compassionate moral spirit of the Bible is somehow different in this case. But Tom does not really provide any scriptural evidence that his general exegesis of Jesus’ teaching is somehow better than the interpretation of the Catholic Church fathers as well as the leaders of a great many Christian denominations who see this refugee crisis exactly as a situation requiring Jesus’ call for love and mercy.

    Others have said that it is specifically because these refugees are Muslim that we should not help them, but forgive my ignorance, the Good “Samaritan” story seems to make the point so obvious that it is exactly those who are of different creeds, ethnicities and races that we are to see as our neighbors.

    Some have said that love for our own family, community and country should make us ban these people until we can make sure that everyone in this country is without material hardship or any risk. However, doesn’t that sound more like the argument that the fellows who passed up the robbed and dying person in Jesus’ story might make?

    Finally, some have made the argument that the individual people, not the government, should not be the one making the choice of being Good Samaritan. However, this flies in the face of the fact that “only” the government can banish or allow us to aid these desparate women and children. I understand the practical considerations, and sympathize with them, but it seems so obvious on balance in this case that the moral considerations far outweigh the practical ones.

    As I said, the Good Samaritan story and the overall theme of love and mercy set forth by Jesus in the Bible seems so appropriate to this situation. I’m still waiting for a convincing argument from the Christian Biblical scholars here as why my church leaders, who are so convincing on the subject, are wrong about this. Please enlighten us all if someone actually has one.


  16. Insanitybites22-

    “’Outrageous and stupid’ are not facts, they are subjective opinions.”

    Ha! Well, I’ll give you that point. Trump mostly says and tweets outrageous and stupid “opinions” that often provably have little or no basis in any actual facts. That these opinions were counter factual or misleading is what the AP story showed. However, that Trump and his propagandists actually tweet and voice these “outrageous and stupid” opinions (admittedly, my characterization, not the AP’s) is a reportable “fact”, isn’t it? 😒


    1. “Trump mostly says and tweets outrageous and stupid “opinions” that often provably have little or no basis in any actual facts….”

      Well, here’s a couple of “facts” to consider. Trump was swept into office propelled by a ground swell of popular support all across the country. He is now the President of the United States, a “fact” that is not dependent on whether you approve or not. Now, some people would accept that staggering loss and have the intellectual humility to actually do some research, ask why your “vastly superior facts,” have been so categorically rejected by a huge swath of America.

      You can continue down the path you are on if you prefer, but I’ll remind you that your perception of “stupid and outrageous” just kicked your behind and won the election with my full approval. So you have only two choices here, re-examine what you are labeling “outrageous and stupid” and consider the possibility that you could be wrong, or spend the next four, eight years, railing against something you do not even understand.

      I caution you against the later however, because it’s a bit like crying wolf. Should Trump ever do anything truly awful, people are going to be so tired of hearing the casual use of words like “stupid and outrageous,” they’re not going to believe us. Outrage is a form of currency and at the moment the left is so devaluing it, I fear we’ll have nothing left to spend should we ever need it.


  17. Insanitybites22

    With all due respect, you know that I turn everything that you just wrote around and say it about the last to where Obama actualy did win the popular vote. But I’ll let you do that for yourself.

    The immediate and sustained outrage to Obama’s twice being overwhelmly elected president shows that outrage is not a limited fungible. It is something that seems to grow more with every passing day, and every day Trump seems to do some BS that fertilizes it even. To use your metaphor, there really is no need for the Democrats to falsely cry wolf as the wolf is there for all to see. Anyway, don’t you think it a little hypocritical for Republicans to chastise the Democrats for using outrage? 🤔


    1. “Anyway, don’t you think it a little hypocritical for Republicans to chastise the Democrats for using outrage?”

      Not at all. I’m actually not chatising anyone, just pointing out the fact that outrage is a limited form of currency. So if you spend the whole bank all at once, people stop listening to you and outrage as a form of political currency no longer has any impact.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. @Tony

      Here is the difference. Did some Republicans and Conservatives demonize Obama? No. Much of what Obama did should have gotten him thrown out of office. However, it was obvious that was not going to happen.

      Most Republicans spent very little ammunition on Obama. The big Tea Party demonstrations were about issues. Bloggers such myself and insanitybytes22 blog had relatively little to say about Obama. What we talked about were issues, and there was no violence.

      In fact, because of the bailout initiated by George W. Bush, the Tea Party types started getting in gear because of their anger with the Bush administration. Since Democrats adopted Bush’s policy and Republicans otherwise wanted nothing to do with the bailout, Democrats had to assume the blame as well as the policy. Considering that Obama’s rule by pen and phone followed the administration of George W. Bush that is actually quite remarkable.


  18. Tom –

    So Republicans such as yourself, Tea Baggers and Congress were not immediately and continuously outraged by Obama’s election and reelection? What world have you been living in? Go back and read your own posts over the last eight years.

    There were immediate Tea Party protests. The Republican Senate leader announced to his fellow Republicans that they should block everything just to make Obama a one term president. With almost a year left in his term, Republicans refused to even hold hearings or vote on a qualified Supreme Court nominee just because Obama nominated him. Our current President (I almost have to spit when I write that) pretty much began his Republican political career questioning the actual legitimacy of Obama as an American citizen. You spend a good bit of your electronic ink here calling the opposition, including Obama, names. (I’ve never read Insanitybites’ blog, but from what I have read from her/him here, I will take your word for it that it is more reserved). Because outrage for the Republicans has been so immediate and sustained, they don’t even know what it is like to actually be not outraged anymore. You think outrage is just a sunny day in the park.

    Any Democrat with half a brain knows that violence hurts their cause more than it helps it. If you think that that is the narrative here then you are missing the forest for a couple of weeds. This movement in response to Trumpism is much bigger and far more spontaneous than the Republican reaction to Obama. They also seem to be taking a lesson from the Tea Party and going beyond protest to begin a sustained political movement that not only goes after Republicans, but also disciplines Democrats who are too conciliatory.

    Republicans have proven that a party pays no political price for being obstructionist, even if it undermines our traditions and institutions. Democrats have learned from your play book and are exceeding it. It will be an interesting couple of years. To paraphrase a WWII Japanese Admiral, Trump has awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with serious resolve. About time.


    1. @Tony

      I presume you are using that phrase “tea bagger” just to illustrate how well mannered Democrats are, correct?

      Check out projectveritasaction.com. The Democrats hired rabble rousers to disrupt Trump’s campaign events.

      It is also clear Democrats are fighting efforts to protect the integrity of the vote for unscrupulous reasons.


      I could go on, but you must know what the Democrats have done and what the are doing. You can’t be that ignorant.

      I have participated in Tea Party demonstrations. I am a member of the local Republican Party. We did not hate Obama. We dispensed what he was doing. What he was doing was transforming the character of the country. That was never suppose to be the president’s job. We are not his to mold.


    2. @Tony

      Sleeping giant? Like the attendance at Hillary’s rallies? You guys do better with inner-city riots when the attendees break windows, steal things, and burn everything else down.


      1. You may have forgotten the history of your own movement Tom. “Tea Bagger” comes from the beginning of Tea Party movement when its proponents on April 15th, Tax Day, encouraged people to send Tea Bags to President Obama. Those proponents literally told supporters to “Tea Bag the White House”. If you think the term “Tea Bag” is an insulting slur, then it must have been meant by your movement as an insulting slur to the President at that time as well, don’t you think?

        I used it above as a literal descriptor of what later became the Tea Party movement. It is what that movement originally did and what they actually called themselves, not as a slur. I had hoped, however, that you would respond to it in order to make a point about how these discussions sometimes devolve into broad mislabeling and name calling.

        Is the Republican Party and the Tea Party really to be judged by the worst things that some of its proponents have done? If millions of people who have peacefully marched in this country and around the world, all individual Democrats and the Democratic Party have to own the violence of a few dumb kids at Berkeley (more likely anarchists than Democrats), do you, Trump and your Party have to own the acts and opinions of every violent white supremacist?

        “You guys do better with inner-city riots when the attendees break windows, steal things, and burn everything else down.”

        “You guys”? 🙄

        Its understandable. When it becomes impossilbe to successfully make a moral Christian argument defending Trump’s actions here, then comes the desparate deflection away from the subject and the derogatory broad labeling. Insanitybites does it in an satirically subtle and light hearted manner which lacks the mean spiritedness. However, either way, the retreat into this swamp usually signifies that the reasonable moral debate has already been lost.


        1. “When it becomes impossilbe to successfully make a moral Christian argument defending Trump’s actions here…”

          Well I think we can make a sound moral argument in favor of God’ s will, Divine Providence, and the fact that we tend to get the leaders we deserve, hence Romans 13:1-2 which tells us “Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God” And also we are called to pray for our leaders, so this idea that we can somehow act as if Trump’s authority can be easily revoked simply by us subjectively declaring him to not fit our alleged “Christian moral narrative,” is foolish to say the least.

          Also, I must say, I have not yet disagreed with one single thing the man has done. I’m sure he’ll get around to displeasing me at some point, but as of right now, I approve of his choices.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. @Tony

          I cannot top insanitybyte22’s reply. So I will focus on suggesting you look up that phrase you used.

          The Tea Bag is a reference to the Boston Tea Party. The phrase you used sure ain’t that. Of course, the crowd you hang out with would have happily used the same phrase to describe the participants in the Boston Tea Party. After all, why would folks who voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton object to King George III? Isn’t the Democratic Party always trying to make us more like Europe?


Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Musings Of An Imaginary Billionaire

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren


"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life



PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.


The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity


People Healing People


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13


My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: