February 1, 2017 · OPINION
Muslim ban makes our nation less safe
By Julie G. Duggan
President Trump’s ban on Muslims from certain countries entering the United States is short-sighted and unwise. It is clear to all the world that the U.S. has succumbed to fear-mongering by imposing a religious test for entry into this country. It is also clear to all the world that the U.S. has decided that Muslims are the enemy.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has spoken against the ban. He says that it will not only endanger our servicemen and women around the world but also hinder their efforts to fight terrorism by forming alliances with those very people who have now been rejected by our government. The Muslim ban throws up similar roadblocks for police and other law-enforcement officials here at home.
Banning refugees, who are desperate for homes and stability, is inhumane. Just like the Jews we turned away in 1939, many of these refugees will go to their deaths in their home country. Targeting refugees is irrational. They already have the toughest vetting of any immigrant, yet are the most needy. No American has been killed by a refugee in the homeland. However, too many of us have been killed by American citizens who see the establishment as a threat. President Trump’s order just intensifies that dangerous perception.
For our own safety, the U.S. government needs consider smarter ways to combat ISIS. This ban is a gift to them.
Franklin D. Roosevelt said that we have nothing to fear except fear itself. President Trump and those who support the Muslim ban have just proven him correct.
Traverse · February 10, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Jim continues to mislead. But I grow tired of pointing out the obvious. McCain and Graham are the poster children for the Trump Haters Club... hardly a reliabe source for anything IMO.
No more schooling Jim, you're on your own. Good luck young man.
Latest commentary from The Heritage Foundation:
Jim Griffin · February 10, 2017 at 2:22 pm
BTW, reviewing this thread makes clear it is you that first mentioned Nazis, used the phrase "half a brain," called the appeals court a circus, and so on through a litany of abusive comments. Now you claim to be a victim of "petty insults" and those with a "socialist world view."
I'll remind you that my first comment quoted Republicans McCain and Graham criticizing Trump.
I stand by my words with my full name. Keep hiding, sorry to hear you are a target for abuse as a result of your comments and bumper stickers. You deserve better.
Jim Griffin · February 10, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Traverse: Sometimes you need to smile! When the person with whom you are discussing something says something like "half a brain" as you did it is difficult to resist the humorous opportunity! Lighten up. This is a wonderful civics lesson playing out before our eyes: No one is above the law.
Traverse · February 10, 2017 at 1:59 pm
.. and the left doesn't even play checkers well.... as you can see from Jim's comments. But it's probably not his fault. I expect some liberal professor corrupted his understanding of civics, like they're doing to most of the kids these days.
Jim is also still under the false impression that petty insults will somehow legitimize his opinion, when in reality, that tired tactic has been worn out over the years, and no longer has any affect, other than to show that the left is bitter and angry about impending demise of thier socialist world view.
Jim Griffin · February 10, 2017 at 12:59 pm
We defend our country against the those who attack our courts and our constitution, speaking as you admittedly are on behalf of those with half a brain.
Who else could possibly suggest there is anyone or any law that stands above our constitution?
Hypocritical, too, because he now places his faith in the US Supreme Court, 4-4 Rep v Dem, just as were the four judges who've unanimously ruled in favor of our constitution.
Can we now reliably predict he will add the Supreme Court to his "circus" list to attack once they confirm courts can review POTUS? Do we really expect a different result from courts? Really?
No, which is why bright minds will rewrite the order to comply with court review. Sooner the better. After all, our nation's security is at stake!
Traverse · February 10, 2017 at 12:26 pm
Big suprise... the extremely liberal "9th Circus" upholds the illegal stay on President Trump's fully constitutional travel ban, as I predicted... and as anyone with half a brain knew would happen. Then just as predictable, Jim chimes in quoting the Circus as a reliable source on the Constitution. Doh! Never saw that coming.
Trump is playing chess while the left plays checkers, and continues to give him all the ammo he needs to overturn this where it matters, The Supreme Court, and to finally break up the silly kangaroo-kindergarten 9th Circuit Court.
Jim Griffin · February 10, 2017 at 9:41 am
Another important quote from yesterday's decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (making the vote count against the executive order 4-0, two from Republican appointees, two from Democratic-appointees):
“Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one. There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
Jim Griffin · February 9, 2017 at 9:15 pm
Unanimous decision today from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
"Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context." ...
“‘[N]ational defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal... It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction
the subversion of one of those liberties ... which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”
BJ · February 9, 2017 at 6:53 am
It has always been my understanding that the reason we have 3 branches of government (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative) was to prevent anyone thinking they have the rights of a King/Queen or Dictator, and that they can do whatever they want when they are put into a position of power. Checks and Balances. I have to say whatever side of the fence you are on, that this new administration has woken the people of this country from their apathy and status quo stance pertaining to the Constitution and governing branches. It is truly amazing actually to hear people talking, questioning the actions of their elected officials, and getting out there and making their feelings known to the world. That is democracy in action, we should be able to speak our peace without recrimination, let's just make sure we speak the truth and nothing but the truth. Blaine Johnson
Jim Griffin · February 9, 2017 at 12:49 am
There are no unvetted refugees, it can take two years:
Neither may POTUS, who must swear to follow the constitution, violate the equal protection clause in exercising his discretion. The Constitution stands squarely above the law.
In fact, there can be no doubt you are wrong because today the US awaited a court decision on whether or not Trump's plan my proceed, a decision that under our tripartite govt rests with the court, not the President, else we would not be awaiting the court's decision on whether his plan can be put back into effect in whole or in part.
You are wrong, Traverse, about both POTUS being required to follow the constitution and vetting of refugees (currently takes up to two years, no refugees go unvetted). That you are so sure you are right that you claim others haven't even the right to argue about it is alarmingly fascistic.
Meanwhile, you hide behind a pseudo-anonymous name, unwilling to accept accountability for your outrageous falsehoods, which include the absurd claim that the president could choose without consequence or review to discriminate on gender, race, color, creed in exercising his powers.
And so we sit now, awaiting the 9th Circuit's judgment on the requested stay, knowing that even if there is a stay of the judge's restraining order (and there clearly has been none approved so far), the case reviewing the decision will go forward, all of which negates completely your false claim that the President's power is unreviewable.
In fact, it is already under review, you simply refuse to admit it.
Traverse · February 9, 2017 at 12:01 am
Jim: I appreciate your passionate arguments, I truly do, but you have some catching up to do on the law and the Constitution.
You and judge Robart are incorrect in your interpretation. This law has been in pace for decades, and every President, including Obama, has invoked it it some form without judicial intervention. This immigration law is well established, and constitutional, despite your incorrect arguments to the contrary.
We gamble with the lives of our fellow countrymen when we allow unvetted people from failed states into our country, We gamble with the lives of our children when we condone judicial overreach in a futile attempt besmirch the motives of a new President, who is trying to keep terrorist from entering our country.
Over 100 unvetted "refugees" from Syria alone, have entered our county this week, since Robart issued his stay.
To be clear, it is you who are on the wrong side of this debate, and eventually the truth will have it's day.... regardless of what we say here. You and I will never agree, and further debate is pointless. I have made my case, and am very confident the law and the truth are on President Trump's side. God bless him for taking on politically incorrect, but necessary steps to protect us all.
Jim Griffin · February 8, 2017 at 11:17 pm
To be clear, you are wrong: A President may not violate the US Constitution as he or she exercises his/her authority. Discriminating on the basis of gender, religion, color, etc., is prohibited by the US Constitution and the President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.
I think deeply about these issues. Again, your suggestion to the contrary is purely ad hominem attack. Ironically, you claim to be a victim of attacks for your views. No one should suffer that, especially at the hands of you, who claim to be a victim.
Traverse · February 8, 2017 at 10:26 pm
Jim: if you spent more time actually thinking about my comments, rather than making pettty remarks about minor spelling errors made on a cell phone, you may not come across as...well.. petty. But whatever... your reputation is not the issue here.
You seem smart enough to answer the questions you just asked, but just in case you're not, I'll indulge you one more time.
If any President in his judgement, finds that any group or class aliens poses a threat to this country, he has the lawful authoity to prevent that group from coming here. Men, women, black, white, Christian, Jew... any class of alien.
I do blelive this judge is "rogue" (happy now?), stepped way outside his authority, and should be impeached. Yes that is indeed so.
Jim Griffin · February 8, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Traverse: Not many involved are purely alien or completely without constitutional protection. If they'd been judge-shopping they found an unusual ally in a Bush appointee. Immigration is already limited.
What is a rouge judge and why would you care if a judge wore red powder? Oh, you must be thinking rogue -- and speaking of rogue there is little more disgusting that removing good judges with whom you simply disagree.
Tell me, Travis, since you seem to know the law so very well: Could Trump within his broad authority simply choose to deny, even temporarily, women and not men, or dark-skinned people, or perhaps those of Jewish faith? Could he do that if he so choose and escape proper review by the courts?
You seem to think he could do that without review by judges, and that any who interfere should be impeached, removed, replaced. Is that so?
Traverse · February 8, 2017 at 8:58 pm
Aliens have no constitional rights, no guarantees. The judge should be impeached for his overreach. Who appointed him is irrelevant. The liberal 9th Circuit will no doubt show the same lack of restraint, they usually can be counted on for that.
Liberals have no power, they lost it after the county watched Obama trample the the Constitution for 8 years. Now thier only recourse is to judge shop and legislate from the bench and deny the will of the electorate, who wanted immigration limited, and put Trump in office to get it done.
I'll bet a dollar that Trump has added this rouge judge to a list he'll regret he ever was on. Impeach. Remove. Reappoint.
Jim Griffin · February 8, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Traverse: God help you if you mistakenly believe our Constitution can be trampled on by anyone, including a President exercising their broad authority. It is our Constitution that stands between you and the result sought. My money is on the Constitution, especially if the US Supreme Court gets involved.
What I find particularly offensive and frankly ignorant is your assertion that this is so very simple and clear that people who take the position I am taking are simply divisive.
I will remind you that in writing this I am defending the Constitution over the President -- any President -- and let me tell you that it is an easy call to make, especially for patriots. Respectfully, we can differ on the merits of the various arguments, but to suggest that it is simply divisive to make the argument at all, and then to claim the President can violate our constitution in pursuit of his exercise of authority, is missing the point entirely in a manner that suggests it is you that simply does not understand.
A Bush appointee put into effect a nationwide restraining order for a reason, but you insist even arguing the point is wrong. The appeals court has heard the case and we await its decision. This is not the easy call you claim.
He may well have this authority, and he may well have exercised it properly -- this remains to be determined through a proper court proceeding -- but there is no question that the President's authority is reviewable against the Constitution's guarantees for those covered by it.
It may be true -- we do not yet know -- that the constitution simply does not apply in those narrowly defined cases that involve people who have never visited our country before, have no family tie here, have no invitation or no visa, but the constitution's guarantees can restrain the President as regards those with claims to constitutional rights listed in the categories I just outlined, and some states are asserting the rights of their schools to invite scholars for research and learning.
Traverse · February 8, 2017 at 7:45 pm
Nice try Jim. Re-read the law. The text reads clearly, that the President may exclude any alien for any reason. It doesn't say anything about religion, race, or place of origin. At his sole discretion the President may exclude "any aliens or any class of aliens" "he may deem appropriate". Your comments are a perfect example in my opinion, of why we have such a hard time coming together as a people, because simple clear words have no common meaning.
Jim Griffin · February 8, 2017 at 2:34 pm
Yes, POTUS has broad authority in this area, but it is clearly reviewable and not unfettered. Purely as a hypothetical, IF it were proven that he pursued this order on account of religion it would be unconstitutional without question.
Did that happen? This is a judgment for our courts to draw, amongst others, many of them related to process, which was McCain and Graham's concern in the first place, and now the DHS admits his mistake.
Liberal judges? The judge who issued the order in question was appointed by a Republican, George Bush. It is not a "liberal" concept to believe our justice system opposes discrimination based on faith or national origin.
Rioting and beatings are illegal. Prosecute and condemn those crimes, to be sure, but the left has no monopoly on "coming unhinged." Readers of even these mild comment pages in Fauquier make that much obvious.
Traverse · February 8, 2017 at 2:13 pm
Using phone to post... auto correct not helping with grammar... apologies.
Regarding BJ's request for my name. After having my vehicle vadalized for my Trump sticker, seeing all the liberals rioting in the streets, and watching other supporters brutally beaten on the news, I hope you'll all understand why I prefer to keep my anonymity. Nothing against BJ... I assume he's not a threat, but many read these posts, and it's clear the left is coming unhinged.
Traverse · February 8, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Speaking ok taking things seriously... liberal judges should take this seriously, and stop making political interpretations of the law:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
The President has broad power to restrict any non citizen (aliens), for any reason. All the arguments put forth by commenters in in this thread that imply otherwise, are either misinformed, or as I suspect, disingenuous.
BJ · February 7, 2017 at 6:41 pm
Traverse - My name is Blaine Johnson. The only way that anyone can take you seriously is if you face the music sir, and let us know who you are, unless you are into propaganda pushing and stirring the pot for laughs.
BJ · February 7, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Traverse - I did not call you any of the names or allude to any of the names you are attributing to me. You have the right to your opinion, as do I. I served this country in the military, during the 1st Gulf War, and yes times are not good, yet I've seen worse. The only Hannibal at the gate is Steve Bannon and his agenda to muck up the world for his own personal chuckle-fest.
Traverse · February 6, 2017 at 4:56 pm
Ignorant, predudiced, stupid, fear monger, offensive, fascist, kkk, nazi... I had no idea I was any of these things, but BJ, Lash, and Demo obviously think they know better. Good grief... collectively you folks make quite a lesson on how not to conduct civil debate. But try as you may, I will continue to speak the truth as I see it, and call attention to threats to my county, no matter how politically incorrect you may find my thinking.
The truth is, I'm am none of the things you discribe, and I do a great deal of reading and reflecting before I speak my mind. I harbor no I'll will to anyone except those who would threaten my country. For you to characterize my well researched comments as ignorance and hate is shameful.
The threat of Islam to our nation is real. If you are unwilling to do the research to figure this out on your own, then me pointing you to my sources will not convince you, as you will, no doubt, find some fault in that as well.
Hannibal is at the gates my friends, and no amount of name calling, espousing politically correct talking points, hating Trump, or wishing it wasn't true, will change that fact.
BJ · February 4, 2017 at 8:22 pm
Let's see..who did the deeds in Oklahoma City, Sandy Hook Elementary School, a South Carolina church, and a Colorado High School? Young, white men, or is that an "alternative fact"? When is there to be a ban on young, white men between the age of 16-34? We have nothing to fear but the ignorance of the uninformed and deniers of the "true facts". I am more concerned about the sex offender down the street then I am of a person from the "7" middle eastern countries trying to harm my family. Blaine Johnson
Lash_LaRue · February 4, 2017 at 5:47 pm
"Who are the ones trying to silence all conservative thought?"
I can't speak for all liberals, but I can speak for most liberals when I say that we're not trying to silence, "all conservative thought".
We're just trying to vehemently rebut elements of conservative thought (at least as circumscribed by right wing media outlets) that are not rooted in fact, but rather in fear, prejudice, and pure ignorance.
You wonder why "the libs" are angry? Well, it's because the elements of "conservative thought" that you and your President are espousing regarding a Muslim ban (because that's what that duck is) are, point of fact, rooted in ignorance.
Maybe you're not ignorant, but the fear of all Muslims based on the literal interpretations of verses from their Holy Book is rooted in ignorance. Ever read the book of Deuteronomy? Maybe we should truly be afraid of all Christians who want to implement God's law and stone their disobedient children to death.
Moreover, it's just a stupid policy. It doesn't do anything but give the radical jihadists (who are mostly all salafists, by the way) more recruiting fodder. It pointlessly antagonizes for little gain. If you alienate a huge group of people, in aggregate you run the risk of creating more terrorists than you're stopping. Killing them all would be nice, but it isn't going to work; you can't kill an idea.
Demosthenes · February 4, 2017 at 5:35 pm
Not much point in arguing with an idiot...but Traverse is so offensive I just gotta throw in a line or two.
I have a good friend who is a Muslim. It isn't his fault - he was born that way! His parents were refugees who escaped violence against their particular sect in Pakistan and ended up here. He, and his entire family, are just average Americans who face the same troubles we all face.
I've met many Muslims through this friend of mine, and honestly they are just people trying to make a decent life for themselves. They cause no harm to us, but their efforts do add to our economy. Banning immigrants, refugees or otherwise, is definitely passing up on a great resource to add to American productivity.
As for Sharia law: First, where is the evidence that Muslims expect the US to adopt a religious law code? Second, even if they did expect the US to adopt a religious law code, would our country ever accept that? Our Constitution, with its separation between religion and government, makes it pretty obvious that any argument about the spread of Sharia law is just fearmongering.
As for your "cross section of many resources easily available on the internet and elsewhere" that remain unlisted and unproven...I'm calling you out. You don't have any real numbers from any real sources, or you'd have already listed them.
citizen observer · February 3, 2017 at 2:51 pm
Just read this last line in the article:
"Franklin D. Roosevelt said that we have nothing to fear except fear itself. President Trump and those who support the Muslim ban have just proven him correct."
This from the same President that locked up all our Japanese citizens in camps because of fear. Hardly a good comparison to a president enacting a temporary travel ban until some serious problems are fixed.
Traverse · February 3, 2017 at 2:48 pm
Speaking fascists and Nazis... who are the ones trying to silence all conservative thought? Who are the ones rioting, burning, breaking, attacking and beating up inocent Trump supporters? Who suggested that Yiannopoulus's book be burned? Who constantly hurls false accusations of racism and hate speak at thier fellow countrymen? That would be liberals.
Now you may not be a communist, but communists do support the democrats. That's a fact.
See how this works? Isn't hurling insults fun!?
Your youth and inexperience is obvious.
citizen observer · February 3, 2017 at 2:38 pm
It's time for all the peaceful Muslims, for which there are many, and their clerics to speak out publicly condemning the violence preached by radicals.
The Christians had to do that very same thing several decades ago. Remember all the abortion clinic bombings by radical Christians? It wasn't until their leaders spoke out condemning their violent actions that it ceased.
I'm for anyone coming to this country who wants to work hard, pay taxes to support our programs, and live as free Americans. You can worship any religion or thing you so desire, just don't try and make me do it if I don't want to.
Sharia Law is against many of the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution and should not ever become public law. If you want to use it in private that is your choice.
I just read a male threw a bomb into a restaurant in Pasadena California. Time for this nonsense to stop.
Lash_LaRue · February 3, 2017 at 12:23 pm
Yeah, well, you have a point that some Muslims are terrorists.
I have a point too.
Some Trump supporters are fascists.
Both are true.
Before you start painting an entire group of people with the exact same paintbrush, maybe you should take a long, hard look in the mirror.
For the record, the Nazi party and KKK DO support YOUR SIDE.
You might not be a Nazi, but the Nazi's DO SUPPORT TRUMP. That is a FACT.
Traverse · February 3, 2017 at 11:16 am
It didn't take long for the predictable name calling to begin... Nazi... fascist... kkk... blah, blah, blah. This type of sick ridicule used against your neighbors to try and silence opposition is so overused it no longer has any meaning.
I stand by my comments. Learn the true nature of Islam.
Lash_LaRue · February 3, 2017 at 11:01 am
Wow. This is truly rich and deeply ironic:
"Not all Germans supported the Nazi party, but there were enough Nazis to render peaceful Germans irrelevant."
Another way of saying the same thing would be:
"Not all Americans supported the Trump party, but there were enough Trump supporters to render peaceful Americans irrelevant."
Traverse, are you CERTAIN that the fascist isn't, in fact YOU?!? You should really doubt yourself on this point.
The Nazis scapegoated the Jews for Germany's problems in the 1920's. Trump is scapegoating immigrants, especially the Muslim variety.
It's truly, truly rich and deeply ironic that any hardcore Trump supporter would apply the Nazi label to anyone other than their own damn selves. Which candidate do you think the KKK and the ACTUAL AMERICAN NAZI PARTY support anyhow?!?
Jim Griffin · February 3, 2017 at 10:47 am
Our constitution speaks louder than your words, a guarantee to all that they are free here to pursue their religious beliefs.
What percentage of those in the West -- like yourself -- wish Muslims dead or converts to Christianity? What percentage do you guess?
How can it be that "Islam is the antithesis of everything America stands for" when America stands for freedom of religious belief? Indeed, we fled the boot of the Crown in large part because it drew judgments like those you draw here.
Where did I "site (sic) other available research by leftists who make apologies for the true nature of that oppressive political ideology"? Did any comment in the Fauquier Times do that?
Vetting visitors is different from vetting immigrants. We already subject immigrants to rigorous examination over years of inquiry, but visitors for academic reasons, vacations, business meetings and the like are different.
Ben Franklin drew the right conclusion: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I agree, so I will err on the side of freedom and trust the exercise of my Second Amendment rights will secure for all the blessings of the First Amendment's freedoms, just as the framers hoped.
Traverse · February 3, 2017 at 10:30 am
"Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free", yes! Your huddled masses yearning to spread sharia law, and subjegate our nation to a life under Islamic rule. No!
The estimates I provided are not my own, they're from a cross section of many resources easily available on the internet and elsewhere. And yes, there are that many who wish us all dead or converts to Islam. Sobering reality. Islam is the antithesis of everything America stands for. You may want to site other available research by leftists who make apologies for the true nature of that oppressive political ideology cloaked as a "religion", but I will not! And until I know for sure I will error on the side of caution, and only trust those who have been fully vetted. Not all cultures and religions are morally equivilant. Sad but true.
Jim Griffin · February 3, 2017 at 9:47 am
Is it truly your best estimate that there are today about 375 million Muslims (25% of 1.5bil) plotting attacks against the West (a number that far exceeds the US population)? And is it your notion that these 375 million should taint our assessment of the 1.125 billion you estimate are not plotting to attack us?
Where is it written that "you are expected to adopt our culture"? Can you name a religion that doesn't suggest its followers spread the word?
Don't we actually say just the opposite, that you should bring your culture, that you will find here freedom of religion, speech, association and more?
Isn't that what our forefathers did, aren't we the better for our diverse society, the differing cultures, cuisines, arts, healing and more?
Apparently, you'd prefer we removed the Statue of Liberty, who says:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Traverse · February 3, 2017 at 8:51 am
Not all Germans supported the Nazi party, but there were enough Nazis to render peaceful Germans irrelevant, just as peaceful muslims are irrelevant today. There are roughly 1.5 billion muslims in the word, and over 25% are estimated to be plotting attacks against the West. Most Muslims have no paper trail to vet against... peasful or otherwise. If a person wants to come to America they must be able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they are not dangerous. We are under no obligation to let anyone immigrate. No one has a right to come here. If you do, you are expected to adopt our culture, not force yours upon us, which is one of the major tenants of Islam. Time for common sense levels of immigration, and extreme vetting of all those who apply. If you can't be vetted you can't come in.
Lash_LaRue · February 2, 2017 at 2:31 pm
With all due respect, can we please cut the crap? We can all argue until we're blue in the face about whether it's technically a, "muslim ban" or just a ban on travelers from certain countries, but it's irrelevant.
Trump's own campaign pledge for "no more muslims", and Rudy Giuliani's subsequent comments on Fox News pretty much have made clear where Donald stands on this issue. We all know what a duck looks, sounds, and walks like.
But the main point is this: our intelligence community doesn't operate in a vacuum. If we want to be effective in tracking the bad guys, we need to have the support and cooperation of certain foreign governments that have majority Muslim populations. His ban, Muslim or otherwise, was clearly done in a sloppy, slapdash fashion.
We can only hope that cooler heads will prevail in preventing the Donald from doing irreparable damage to inter-governmental working relationships that are crucial to our national security. What we don't know can indeed hurt us, and blunt policy tools like these are akin to removing a fly from the wall with a sledgehammer.
Good luck to us all.
Cannon · February 2, 2017 at 10:30 am
While it would be easy to simply agree with the poster, I just can't. Trump did not BAN Muslims. In fact most of the largest Muslim countries are unaffected by this ban. In fact, in his order, he only mentioned one country, Syria, by name. The list of 7 countries was generated in 2015 and 2016 of countries in such turmoil that there is little assurance of even proper ID.
He did however ask for a 90 day hold until both the 7 countries and our county can be sure of proper vetting of those asking to come here.
While it is true that there have been no attacks on American soil by immigrants from these countries, one has to be blind to not see the attacks on citizens of European countries - both large scale and individual.
I support a temporary hold to give our government a chance to continue our safety. Not unreasonable, not out of line, and yes, we protect ourselves first.
Rover 530 · February 1, 2017 at 11:21 pm
No one has banned Muslims from this country. Ever. All citizens from several selected countries from which radical Islamic terrorists originated have been temporarily prohibited from entering this country as a precaution. As of this time, nothing permanent has been proscribed by the Federal Government.
citizen observer · February 1, 2017 at 3:48 pm
Thank you Mr. Griffin. I know exactly what you are speaking of in relation to credibility. If I could I would but unfortunately cannot at this time as my employer has very stringent rules on social media and other public postings.
Jim Griffin · February 1, 2017 at 2:06 pm
CO: I apologize. You are right, it doesn't mean you're not a thinking person.
It does mean that those of us seeking to weigh your perspective have less evidence upon which to do so, deprived as we are of your situation.
My situation might be similar. I'd've given your answer previously, thinking accountability might deprive me or my family of some amount of commerce or friendship, but I've come to believe otherwise.
People in Fauquier County are a fine community and like to know with whom they are engaging in discourse. It is unfortunate if you simply cannot identify yourself and so my heart goes out to you if so and we can both hope and pray that the situation changes such that you can attach your name to your words.
cmecamp · February 1, 2017 at 2:05 pm
So you choice to wait until we have another 911 on our hands ? That's what this sounds like to me . I agree all Muslims are not the problem, but we need to drawl the line somewhere? This law was already on the books , Signed by Obama , Trump just chose to enforce it . We need a clear vetting process, we can't just let these people, any people, just roll in here unchecked. You speak of inhumanity, how about put your efforts into the homeless right her now that we can't seem to help , the vast majority of which are our Veterans, wow ! Thanks for your service, now go live under a bridge . Damn people wake up !!!
citizen observer · February 1, 2017 at 12:38 pm
Mr. Griffin, perhaps some people cannot be published under their real name due to occupational restrictions. Doesn't mean we are not thinking people.
Jim Griffin · February 1, 2017 at 12:23 pm
1. I lived in California for over a decade and distinctly recall casting ballots for winning Republicans, amongst them Arnold Schwarzenegger.
2. Virginia a red state? With two Democrats representing Virginia in the US Senate and a Democratic governor? I remind you that three elections in a row Virginia's presidential electors voted for the Democrat. You also ignore strong downstate support for Democrats, such as in Norfolk, Newport News, Richmond and Charlottesville, all with big margins for Democrats.
3. Fauquier "overwhelming" Trump support? Really? For every ten voters, almost six voted for Trump, about four for HRC, a difference of one voter in ten. In other words, if one voter in ten changes their vote, the Democrat wins Fauquier County, where Republicans tax to build airports, aquatic centers and intervene in property markets.
4. Unification is an odd goal -- our nation's diversity is her strength -- but team progress rests upon leadership, not fealty. Lincoln put it best: If two think the same way, we don't need one of them.
5. Aye, change. Nothing endures but change, and let's remember Virginia did not vote the way you claim she thinks, the Commonwealth's actions at odds with your claims.
P.S. Major thanks to you for writing under your real name, a change I made about a year ago because I increasingly ignore anything written pseudo-anonymously, as do most thinking people.
Lee Smith · February 1, 2017 at 11:50 am
To Jim Griffin:
It depends on your definition of a clear signal.
1. The majority of the popular vote gain by HRC was in California which does not vote Republican.
2. Fauquier County voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
3. Virginia is a red state except for the Northern Virginia beltway group which has large numbers due to the urban nature of the area.
4. No we do not want a one branch government but we do want our elected officials to unify with the will of the people.
5. We overwhelmingly voted for change.
Jim Griffin · February 1, 2017 at 11:36 am
Lee Smith: It was not a clear signal. As one example, America did not send an entirely new slate of legislators to serve their interests, most quite surprised the day after the election, the popular vote at odds with the electoral choice, tipped as it was by weak margins in several states.
If you think the election sent a "clear signal" then it must follow that you believe Virginia stands squarely in support of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, which I know to be false, although this was the Commonwealth's electoral vote.
Several states did tip the electoral balance and while I personally agree that the status quo is unacceptable (no vote for HRC here) that does not mean I think we should dispense with the processes upon which our government relies, whatever we think of the decision or POTUS's right to make it.
Lee Smith · February 1, 2017 at 11:15 am
To Jim Griffin:
Your comment is taken with respect. They should be and must be respected for their service in our armed forces as well as all three of my sons (one for Iraq, one for Iraq and Afghanistan and one stateside, my older brother (Vietnam) and my Dad (WWII).
However, America sent a clear signal to Washington that we were looking for a new way of doing things. We wanted change.
citizen observer · February 1, 2017 at 11:08 am
Funny how no one protested when President Clinton signed the Mexican Exclusion Act in 1996 and deported many illegals.
Trump realized there was a big problem with our immigration service allowing those with ties to drug and gun cartels, gangs, terrorist organizations, and convicted felons into this country. No country in the world allows what was happening here. Had he announced an upcoming ban, say on April 1st, do you think these groups may have pushed many undesirables in before the deadline? It had to be done quickly. This is not the first time in our history a president has done this.
Congress needs to quit crying with the protestors and do what we are paying them to do. They should be working on a bi-partisan immigration reform bill to fix the problems. There was a call for President Bush to push it in 2006, but Cheney's Haliburton didn't stand to make any money on it so nothing was done. There was another push during the Obama administration but he chose to just let everyone in. Time for it to be done now.
Jim Griffin · February 1, 2017 at 10:58 am
Lee Smith: Respectfully, these two men served in our nation's armed forces, continue to serve in leadership roles today, have done so for many decades. They share a deep understanding of the issues involved and are not new arrivals on the federal political scene.
Neither McCain nor Graham challenge Trump's right to make the decision he did, nor the decision itself. A careful read of McCain's and Graham's concerns reveals their challenge is to the process followed -- or not followed. I share those procedural concerns.
Lee Smith · February 1, 2017 at 10:44 am
To Jim Griffin:
I do appreciate your civil comment and discussion; however please remember that both John McCain and Lindsay Graham were not elected as the President, although both tried very hard, and the President is the decision maker, according to the Constitution, in this matter. They both do deserve respect as does the President. I thank everyone for well written opinions. Our founding fathers had many civil discussions.
Enter your email address above to begin receiving
news updates from FauquierNow.com via email.
Tuesday, April 25
Resident who launched petition after Thanksgiving wrecks suggests more improvements needed
Tuesday, April 25
Chief says victim posted information about incident on Facebook before notifying his department
More Fauquier news
Tuesday, April 25
“Give Piedmont Local” has raised more $2 million in its first three years; 152 organizations registered in 2017