Molehill

[Dene]

Saturday, 109 passengers were briefly detained while 325,000 entered our country. Even if the number was greater, the ban is temporary....but these facts are never emphasized in the propaganda.

And of course, none of these protesters give a damn about 911, San Bernardino, the Boston marathon bombings, etc.

It took alot of sifting but I finally found a neutral article about this much ado about nothing Muslim ban. The propaganda and hypocrisy out there is amazing. I suppose mainstream America is gonna have to put up with this for the next 8 years. Anything Trump does will be blown up and crucified. Sad state of affairs for my country.

Trump: 'Nothing nice' about fighting terrorism

http://usat.ly/2jJZ04c

Finally....isn't it refreshing to have an elected official like our POTUS to have a moral courage to do what he said he would going to do.....after eight years of empty talk and global weakness.

-Greg

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:14:12 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

Even though it wasn't thought out, certainly immoral and probably
unconstitutional? No it isn't refreshing.

[Dene]

There is nothing immoral about protecting American citizens. What is the basis for it being unconstitutional?

-Greg

[Moderate]

bobby...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

Obama selected the countries. Obama banned
immigration from Iran
in 2011.
--

[Moderate]

Dene <gds...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

> There is nothing immoral about protecting American citizens. What is the basis for it being unconstitutional?
>
> -Greg
>

Butthurt.
--

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:52:53 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

This action isn't protecting anyone. It's dividing families, some have
kin in earlier planes already arriving here, but are being sent
back...even though their visas are awarded. Some fear that they will
be killed because they were emigrating. As I said, it wasn't very
well thought out.

Surely you've been around a newspaper or on the Internet in the last
few days. This isn't being received well, by those in both parties,
and religion being a reason for allowing emigration is very
questionable.

[Dene]

What I'm seeing is ridiculous hysteria over 109 people being detained, most whom were accepted. I'm also understanding there needed to be a level of surprise, so that terrorists can't jump through the window of opportunity.

Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues?
Morally speaking....who says we have to accept any immigrants? We have probably going to make 11 million illegals citizens.

-Greg

[Moderate]

Dene <gds...@aol.com> Wrote in message:
>

> What I'm seeing is ridiculous hysteria over 109 people being detained, most whom were accepted. I'm also understanding there needed to be a level of surprise, so that terrorists can't jump through the window of opportunity.
>
> Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues?
> Morally speaking....who says we have to accept any immigrants? We have probably going to make 11 million illegals citizens.
>
> -Greg
>

And it is perfectly legal. BK was not able to back up his lie
about it not being Constitutional.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
--

[MNMikeW]

Dene wrote:

>
> What I'm seeing is ridiculous hysteria over 109 people being
> detained, most whom were accepted. I'm also understanding there
> needed to be a level of surprise, so that terrorists can't jump
> through the window of opportunity.
>
> Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues? Morally
> speaking....who says we have to accept any immigrants? We have
> probably going to make 11 million illegals citizens.
>
> -Greg

I don't recall the outrage when Obama paused refugees from Iraq in 2011.

[Dene]

Two reasons...
Hypocrisy on the Left, in particular Chuck Schwarmy.
Republicans value border security.

How quickly the "protesters" forget Boston bombing, San Bernadino, Paris, and even 911.

-Greg

[Moderate]

MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

It is not what is done that matters, only who did it.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.
--

[Moderate]

Dene <gds...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

Chuck was calling for a 'pause' on immigrants in 2015.
Hypocrite.
--

[Moderate]

Moderate <nos...@nomail.com> Wrote in message:

>>
>
> Chuck was calling for a 'pause' on immigrants in 2015.
> Hypocrite.
> --
>

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/260471-schumer-refug
ee-pause-may-be-necessary
--

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:35:59 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:19:05 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
> >
> > This action isn't protecting anyone. It's dividing families, some
> > have kin in earlier planes already arriving here, but are being sent
> > back...even though their visas are awarded. Some fear that they will
> > be killed because they were emigrating. As I said, it wasn't very
> > well thought out.
> >
> > Surely you've been around a newspaper or on the Internet in the last
> > few days. This isn't being received well, by those in both parties,
> > and religion being a reason for allowing emigration is very
> > questionable.
>
> What I'm seeing is ridiculous hysteria over 109 people being detained,
> most whom were accepted.

Accepted, but was this before the Federal Court ruling, or after?

> I'm also understanding there needed to be a level of surprise,
> so that terrorists can't jump through the window of opportunity.

Here's a free clue for ya: in the USA, we have this thing called
a "Security Clearance" so that important information can be
protected and retain the element of 'surprise'.

> Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues?

The Courts will sort out all of the specific details, but on
a very high level, one of the factors which needs to be worked
out apparently is from how the USA signed a treaty on the
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is a formal
commitment by the USA under international law.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees#The_contracting_states_shall_not>

> Morally speaking....who says we have to accept any immigrants?

<http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/january-web-only/evangelical-experts-oppose-trump-plan-to-ban-refugees-syria.html>

> We have probably going to make 11 million illegals citizens.

So? You do realize that 98% of the current legal population
of the USA are familial immigrants, don't you?

Overall, the issue isn't with immigration, but with how
immigration has historically been deliberately selective in
just "who" is considered to be acceptable or not - - and this
has been highly influenced by racial/ethnic/religious forms
of discrimination against certain groups (while also very
much deliberately favoring others). For example, simply
check out the current "waiting list" periods:

"The steadily growing waiting period in this preference is now
almost thirteen years for countries of most favorable visa
availability and even longer for some oversubscribed countries."

<https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Immigrant-Statistics/WaitingListItem.pdf>

But also note that this "13 years" is an AVERAGE, plus it is
not a complete end-to-end view:

"The waiting list should not be confused with the processing
backlogs, which represent the length of time it takes for USCIS
to adjudicate each application or petition. The waiting lists
occur because the demand for green cards exceeds the limits
enacted by Congress to regulate the level of immigration;
the processing backlogs occur because USCIS has not effectively
managed the huge volume of applications from people seeking
immigration benefits. For example, it has taken more than 16 months
to process the application for the wife and children of
U.S. citizen Jimmy Gugliotta (there are no numerical limits
for spouses and minor children of citizens), largely because
USCIS has diverted staff..."

"The waiting times in the family categories range from 19 months
to 33 years. The waits in the employment categories range
from none to just over 11 years."

<http://cis.org/vaughan/waiting-list-legal-immigrant-visas-keeps-growing>

The simple bottom line is that if you're a Christian from a
western European country, your wait is quite short, but other
regions ... including some which used to be part of the USA ...
the wait is measured in decades. Simply put, the system is rigged
and the "legal" qualifier is a false flag.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Why is it muslims from countries where Trump has business interests
weren't "detained", Greg?

If we "study the world" as Trump advises, don't we discover that the
9/11 terrorists came mostly from Saudi Arabia...

...and he hasn't banned immigrants from there, has he?

[Alan Baker]

Discriminating on the basis of religion.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:35:57 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

There are thousands of people in a bind, several hundred on planes
that were detained and sent back to their homeland, and all of the
relatives waiting here for them. I know about the hysteria of all of
them. Do you know about all of the uproar of citizens and politicians
of both parties here that is going on?

>I'm also understanding there needed to be a
> level of surprise, so that terrorists can't jump through the window of opportunity.

The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.

>
>Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues?

Well documented Greg.

>Morally speaking....who says we have to accept any immigrants?

That's what the Indians said two hundred years ago. Were your
forebear not immigrants?

>We have probably going to make 11 million illegals citizens.

That's what we do.
>
>-

[bobby...@onramp.net]

It wasn't done this way, and Obama didn't make any reference to
religion. Plus "paused" is the operative term.

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>>>
>>> Even though it wasn't thought out, certainly immoral and probably
>>> unconstitutional? No it isn't refreshing.
>>
>> There is nothing immoral about protecting American citizens. What is the basis for it being unconstitutional?
>>
>> -Greg
>>
>
> Discriminating on the basis of religion.
>

Idiot.

--

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:02:37 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:58:16 AM UTC-8, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Dene wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > What I'm seeing is ridiculous hysteria over 109 people being
>> > detained, most whom were accepted. I'm also understanding there
>> > needed to be a level of surprise, so that terrorists can't jump
>> > through the window of opportunity.
>> >
>> > Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues? Morally
>> > speaking....who says we have to accept any immigrants? We have
>> > probably going to make 11 million illegals citizens.
>> >
>> > -Greg
>>
>> I don't recall the outrage when Obama paused refugees from Iraq in 2011.
>
>Two reasons...
>Hypocrisy on the Left, in particular Chuck Schwarmy.

Crock.
>Republicans value border security.
A lot of them are upset with this.

>
>How quickly the "protesters" forget Boston bombing, San Bernadino, Paris, and even 911.

Another Crock.
>
>-Greg

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

Ask Obama. He made the list. The only country mentioned in
Trump's order was Syria. He used Obama's list.
--

[MNMikeW]

Either did Trump. In fact, he used Obama's list. You are aware that
Trumps EO is also temporary right?

[Moderate]

MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

> bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:58:14 -0600,
>>>

>>> I don't recall the outrage when Obama paused refugees from Iraq in 2011.
>>
>> It wasn't done this way, and Obama didn't make any reference to
>> religion. Plus "paused" is the operative term.
>
> Either did Trump. In fact, he used Obama's list. You are aware that
> Trumps EO is also temporary right?
>

None of that matters to zealots.
--

[MNMikeW]

bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:

>
> The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
> mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
> kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.

Crock. Why are they lone wolves here but terrorists in CA? Mostly on a
watch list? BS.
>>

[Dene]

Please cite the thousands.

> >I'm also understanding there needed to be a
> > level of surprise, so that terrorists can't jump through the window of opportunity.
>
> The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
> mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
> kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.

Like the San Bernardino or Boston killers??

> >Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues?
> Well documented Greg.

IOW, no answer. Executive orders give President Trump sweeping powers.

> >Morally speaking....who says we have to accept any immigrants?
>
> That's what the Indians said two hundred years ago. Were your
> forebear not immigrants?

Yes...1873...but times are a changin

> >We have probably going to make 11 million illegals citizens.
>
> That's what we do.

Doesn't mean we have to do it anymore.

-Greg

[bobby...@onramp.net]

Doubtful.

>You are aware that Trumps EO is also temporary right?

The courts may make that so, but I believe he means to extend it.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:50:07 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
>
>>
>> The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
>> mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
>> kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.
>
>Crock. Why are they lone wolves here but terrorists in CA?

The ones in CA are not Muslims.....they killed Muslims.

>Mostly on a watch list? BS.
>

Then the FBI ain't doing what they say they do.

[John B.]

Protecting them from what? Not one American citizen has ever been
killed by a refugee. Not a single one.

[John B.]

That is patently false. What a surprise coming from you!

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

[MNMikeW]

bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:50:07 -0600, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
>>> mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
>>> kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.
>>
>> Crock. Why are they lone wolves here but terrorists in CA?
>
> The ones in CA are not Muslims.....they killed Muslims.

That would explain why they yelled Allahu akbar then.

[John B.]

Constitutionally speaking, "it may violate the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution," according to Foreign Policy Magazine.

[John B.]

None of those people were refugees.

[John B.]

Imposing a religious test for entry into the United States is
absolutely unconstitutional.

[John B.]

Obama made no list of countries from which all immigration
should be banned.

[John B.]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:42:12 PM UTC-5, Moderate wrote:

[MNMikeW]

The Ohio State attack was a Somali refugee.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:25:13 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

>> them. Dparties o you know about all of the uproar of citizens and politicians
>> of both here that is going on?
>
>Please cite the thousands.

You want their names? LOL. There were over fifteen hundred here at
DFW International.

>
>> >I'm also understanding there needed to be a
>> > level of surprise, so that terrorists can't jump through the window of opportunity.
>>
>> The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
>> mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
>> kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.
>
>Like the San Bernardino or Boston killers??
>
>> >Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues?
>> Well documented Greg.
>
>IOW, no answer.

How many times do you have to hear it. Number one is religion. That's
enough. Trump made it apparent when he added that Christians would be
exempt.

>Executive orders give President Trump sweeping powers.

Not any that are unconstitutional.

>
>> >Morally speaking....who says we have to accept any immigrants?
>>
>> That's what the Indians said two hundred years ago. Were your
>> forebear not immigrants?
>
>Yes...1873...but times are a changin

Not times, but small minds are gaining a hero.

>
>> >We have probably going to make 11 million illegals citizens.
>>
>> That's what we do.
>
>Doesn't mean we have to do it anymore.

Ah, the "I've got mine, fuck you" thinking.


>
>-Greg

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:52:35 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:50:07 -0600, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
>>>> mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
>>>> kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.
>>>
>>> Crock. Why are they lone wolves here but terrorists in CA?
>>
>> The ones in CA are not Muslims.....they killed Muslims.
>
>That would explain why they yelled Allahu akbar then.

You misunderstood. I was talking about Canada not California.

[Moderate]

bobby...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>
> How many times do you have to hear it. Number one is religion. That's
> enough. Trump made it apparent when he added that Christians would be
> exempt.
>

Another lie.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

You keep forgetting that Moderate is a dumb asshole.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

Ah. So that must be Trump's reasoning for this. The Ohio State
attack. LOL

[Moderate]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>
>
> Constitutionally speaking, "it may violate the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution," according to Foreign Policy Magazine.
>

Absurd. Equal protection only extends to citizens and people
within State jurisdiction.
--

[Moderate]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Nobody is imposing a religious test.
--

[Moderate]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>

> Protecting them from what? Not one American citizen has ever been
> killed by a refugee. Not a single one.
>

Not for lack of trying. Willy Clark on line one.
--

[Moderate]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

How does that opinion piece make my statement a lie?
--

[MNMikeW]

bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:52:35 -0600, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:50:07 -0600, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
>>>>> mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
>>>>> kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> Crock. Why are they lone wolves here but terrorists in CA?
>>>
>>> The ones in CA are not Muslims.....they killed Muslims.
>>
>> That would explain why they yelled Allahu akbar then.
>
> You misunderstood. I was talking about Canada not California.

So was I. YOU misunderstood.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:02:37 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:
<clip>

>> > Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues?

Basically the First Amendment to the Constitution regarding religion.
Trump has said that Christians would get priority status from the ban.
""The announcement was met with immediate backlash from leaders of
nearly every Christian denomination, along with those of other
faiths".

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/christians-refugees-trump/514820/

Even the Republican Senate leader has reservations about religious
tests.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-leader-mcconnell-cautions-trump-travel-ban-warns/story?id=45112817

[bobby...@onramp.net]

The shooter in Canada who killed Muslims name is Alexandre Bissonette.
I imagine that he was yelling that as a taunt against those praying
to Allah.

[MNMikeW]

bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:

>>>> That would explain why they yelled Allahu akbar then.
>>>
>>> You misunderstood. I was talking about Canada not California.
>>
>> So was I. YOU misunderstood.
>
> The shooter in Canada who killed Muslims name is Alexandre Bissonette.
> I imagine that he was yelling that as a taunt against those praying
> to Allah.

Seeing they don't really know the motive yet, you would be imagining.

[Alan Baker]

Utterly unsurprisingly:

'1. Bissonnette Has Right-Wing, Pro-Israel, Pro-Trump & Anti-Immigration
Beliefs, a Former Classmate Says

...

But another former classmate, Jean-Michel Allard-Prus, who studied
politics with him, at Université Laval and has kept in touch with him,
told Le Journal de Quebec that Bissonnette, “has right-wing political
ideas, pro-Israel, anti-immigration. I had many debates with him about
Trump. He was obviously pro-Trump.”'

<http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/alexandre-bissonnette-quebec-city-canada-mosque-shooting-attack-suspect-gunman-shooter-photos-pictures-video-motive/>

But, please: don't let facts get in the way of your zealotry.

:-)

[David Laville]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:47:54 -0800 (PST), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> There is nothing immoral about protecting American citizens. What is the basis for it being unconstitutional?
>>
>> -Greg
>
>Protecting them from what? Not one American citizen has ever been
>killed by a refugee. Not a single one.

Did you forget about the Ohio State attack a few short months ago?

[David Laville]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:59:27 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>> The shooter in Canada who killed Muslims name is Alexandre Bissonette.
>> I imagine that he was yelling that as a taunt against those praying
>> to Allah.
>
>Seeing they don't really know the motive yet, you would be imagining.

One news site described him as a Facebook troll. Claims are he's a
Trump supporting right winger.

If he is how much you want to bet the same people who say not all
Muslims are terrorist are going to use him to paint all right wingers
as terrorist and killers?

[David Laville]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:19:33 -0600, bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:

>>Finally....isn't it refreshing to have an elected official like our POTUS to have a moral courage to do what he said he would going to do.....
>>after eight years of empty talk and global weakness.
>>
>>-Greg
>
>Even though it wasn't thought out, certainly immoral and probably
>unconstitutional? No it isn't refreshing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjOYhKhW0AEM8Qe.jpg

Notice how the camera man made it in the room before the guy with the
gun?

[Alan Baker]

Or someone who was there happened to have a camera...

[Alan Baker]

I'll take that bet.

Not all right wingers are terrorists and killers.

[Alan Baker]

Did you forget that no one was killed in that attack?

[Dene]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:47:55 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:52:55 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 7:19:31 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:

> > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:14:12 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Saturday, 109 passengers were briefly detained while 325,000 entered our country. Even if the number was greater, the ban is temporary....but these facts are never emphasized in the propaganda.
> > > >
> > > >And of course, none of these protesters give a damn about 911, San Bernardino, the Boston marathon bombings, etc.
> > > >
> > > >It took alot of sifting but I finally found a neutral article about this much ado about nothing Muslim ban. The propaganda and hypocrisy out there is amazing. I suppose mainstream America is gonna have to put up with this for the next 8 years. Anything Trump does will be blown up and crucified. Sad state of affairs for my country.
> > > >
> > > >Trump: 'Nothing nice' about fighting terrorism
> > > >
> > > >http://usat.ly/2jJZ04c
> > > >

> > > >Finally....isn't it refreshing to have an elected official like our POTUS to have a moral courage to do what he said he would going to do.....
> > > >after eight years of empty talk and global weakness.
> > > >
> > > >-Greg
> > >
> > > Even though it wasn't thought out, certainly immoral and probably
> > > unconstitutional? No it isn't refreshing.
> >

> > There is nothing immoral about protecting American citizens. What is the basis for it being unconstitutional?
> >
> > -Greg
>
> Protecting them from what? Not one American citizen has ever been
> killed by a refugee. Not a single one.

Yet....

-Greg

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:59:27 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

I wish I'd said that. Oh, I did.

[Dene]

The White House says 109, in several statements I saw first hand. You claim 1500. Where is the source. Never read it...never heard it...and if it were true, we'd be hearing it from the rooftops on CNN or MSNBC.

> >> >I'm also understanding there needed to be a
> >> > level of surprise, so that terrorists can't jump through the window of opportunity.
> >>
> >> The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
> >> mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
> >> kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.
> >
> >Like the San Bernardino or Boston killers??

Again...were the Boston or San Bernardino killers on a watch list?

> >> >Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues?
> >> Well documented Greg.
> >
> >IOW, no answer.
>
> How many times do you have to hear it. Number one is religion. That's
> enough. Trump made it apparent when he added that Christians would be
> exempt.

His idea....but not law. Try hearing the interview first hand.

> >Executive orders give President Trump sweeping powers.
>
> Not any that are unconstitutional.

The temporary ban is not unconstitutional...and you know it.

> >> >Morally speaking....who says we have to accept any immigrants?
> >>
> >> That's what the Indians said two hundred years ago. Were your
> >> forebear not immigrants?
> >
> >Yes...1873...but times are a changin
>
> Not times, but small minds are gaining a hero.

Protecting American citizens is a POTUS first job. You just haven't seen in done in 8+ years.

> >> >We have probably going to make 11 million illegals citizens.
> >>
> >> That's what we do.
> >
> >Doesn't mean we have to do it anymore.
>
> Ah, the "I've got mine, fuck you" thinking.

We aren't the world's savior or policeman. How come Saudi Arabia doesn't take any refugees. They have the room!

-Greg

[bobby...@onramp.net]

Mike brought that up earlier today. As I suggested to him, THAT must
have been the reasoning for Trump to order this train wreck.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

Bullshit is called. More assumption based on nothing

[Carbon]

On 01/30/2017 03:15 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

> Moderate wrote:
>> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 12:39:33 PM UTC-5, Moderate wrote:
>>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>>>

>>>>>> There is nothing immoral about protecting American citizens. What
>>>>>> is the basis for it being unconstitutional?
>>>>>

>>>>> Discriminating on the basis of religion.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot.
>>>

>>> Imposing a religious test for entry into the United States is
>>> absolutely unconstitutional.
>>
>> Nobody is imposing a religious test.
>

> Christian exemption!?

Arguing with retards: you shoot the fish in the barrel, but they don't die
because they're too dumb to understand that they've been shot.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

I agree!!! That was a posed picture and the statement untrue.

[Moderate]

Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

>
> Arguing with retards: you shoot the fish in the barrel, but they don't die
> because they're too dumb to understand that they've been shot.
>

What mouse pad do you recommend?
--

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:21:36 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:01:55 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:25:13 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:

>\

>> >> There are thousands of people in a bind, several hundred on planes
>> >> that were detained and sent back to their homeland, and all of the
>> >> relatives waiting here for them. I know about the hysteria of all of
>> >> them. Dparties o you know about all of the uproar of citizens and politicians

>> >> of both here that is going on? h

>>
>> You want their names? LOL. There were over fifteen hundred here at
>> DFW International.
>
>The White House says 109, in several statements I saw first hand. You claim 1500. Where is the source.
> Never read it...never heard it...and if it were true, we'd be hearing it from the rooftops on CNN or MSNBC.
>

Read what I wrote Greg, "thousands of people in a bind...... all of

the relatives waiting here for them.

Then I mentioned fifteen hundred at DFW International. There were more
at LAX and at JFK.

>> >> >I'm also understanding there needed to be a
>> >> > level of surprise, so that terrorists can't jump through the window of opportunity.
>> >>
>> >> The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
>> >> mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
>> >> kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.
>> >
>> >Like the San Bernardino or Boston killers??

Neither were undocumented immigrants.

>
>Again...were the Boston or San Bernardino killers on a watch list?
>
>> >> >Constitutionally speaking....what are the issues?
>> >> Well documented Greg.
>> >
>> >IOW, no answer.
>>

>> How many times do you have to hear it? Number one is religion. That's

>> enough. Trump made it apparent when he added that Christians would be
>> exempt.
>
>His idea....but not law. Try hearing the interview first hand.
>
>> >Executive orders give President Trump sweeping powers.
>>
>> Not any that are unconstitutional.
>
>The temporary ban is not unconstitutional...and you know it.

Well, the courts have put a pause on it, and it
will go higher.

>
>> >> >Morally speaking....who says we have to accept any immigrants?
>> >>
>> >> That's what the Indians said two hundred years ago. Were your
>> >> forebear not immigrants?
>> >
>> >Yes...1873...but times are a changin
>>
>> Not times, but small minds are gaining a hero.
>
>Protecting American citizens is a POTUS first job. You just haven't seen in done in 8+ years.

Bullshit Greg. When and where have you been at risk?

>
>> >> >We have probably going to make 11 million illegals citizens.
>> >>
>> >> That's what we do.
>> >
>> >Doesn't mean we have to do it anymore.
>>
>> Ah, the "I've got mine, fuck you" thinking.
>
>We aren't the world's savior or policeman. How come Saudi Arabia doesn't take any refugees. They have the room!
>

Funny you mention that. Saudi Arabia isn't on the ban list, but there
are major business deals with the Trump empire there.

[Dene]

6:43 PMCarbon

-----------

Is it not a fact that Christians are a minority in Syria and Iraq and have suffered greatly
Is it not a facts that there are 46 Muslim countries who are NOT on the list.
It's not about religion. It's about preventing what's going on in Europe...terror and sexual crimes.

-Greg

[Moderate]

bobby...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:!

>>
> Funny you mention that. Saudi Arabia isn't on the ban list, but there
> are major business deals with the Trump empire there.
>

How fucking stupid can these liberals be?

It was Obama's list.

--

[John B.]

Trump said that Muslims have had an easier time getting
into the U.S. than Christians from Muslim countries have
had, which is false. He said "we're going to help them
(Christians)." Giving preference to one religion over
another is clearly unconstitutional. Go ahead, tell me
I'm wrong.

[John B.]

It is not an opinion piece. It states the facts of Obama's
immigration policy, which is contrary to what you claimed.

[John B.]

Obama's list of what? Was it Obama who banned all immigration
from 7 countries for 120 days?

[Dene]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:32:29 PM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:21:36 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:01:55 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:25:13 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >\
> >> >> There are thousands of people in a bind, several hundred on planes
> >> >> that were detained and sent back to their homeland, and all of the
> >> >> relatives waiting here for them. I know about the hysteria of all of
> >> >> them. Dparties o you know about all of the uproar of citizens and politicians
> >> >> of both here that is going on? h
> >>
> >> You want their names? LOL. There were over fifteen hundred here at
> >> DFW International.
> >
> >The White House says 109, in several statements I saw first hand. You claim 1500. Where is the source.
> > Never read it...never heard it...and if it were true, we'd be hearing it from the rooftops on CNN or MSNBC.
> >
> Read what I wrote Greg, "thousands of people in a bind...... all of
> the relatives waiting here for them.

> Then I mentioned fifteen hundred at DFW International. There were more
> at LAX and at JFK.

Again...no cite. If it were true, which I seriously doubt, that means at least 10 family members per detainee were affected...per airport.

Crock.

People were far more affected by the far left protesters.

> >We aren't the world's savior or policeman. How come Saudi Arabia doesn't take any refugees. They have the room!
> >
> Funny you mention that. Saudi Arabia isn't on the ban list, but there
> are major business deals with the Trump empire there.

Apples and orangutans.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:47:16 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

That's the general understanding, but at the same time adding
religious terminology to the order could be unconstitutional.

[MNMikeW]

bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:

>> -----------
>>
>> Is it not a fact that Christians are a minority in Syria and Iraq and have suffered greatly
>> Is it not a facts that there are 46 Muslim countries who are NOT on the list.
>> It's not about religion. It's about preventing what's going on in Europe...terror and sexual crimes.
>>
>> -Greg
>
> That's the general understanding, but at the same time adding
> religious terminology to the order could be unconstitutional.

It would be. That is why it is not in there.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:29:41 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 6:32:29 PM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:21:36 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:01:55 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:25:13 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >\
>> >> >> There are thousands of people in a bind, several hundred on planes
>> >> >> that were detained and sent back to their homeland, and all of the
>> >> >> relatives waiting here for them. I know about the hysteria of all of
>> >> >> them. Dparties o you know about all of the uproar of citizens and politicians
>> >> >> of both here that is going on? h
>> >>
>> >> You want their names? LOL. There were over fifteen hundred here at
>> >> DFW International.
>> >
>> >The White House says 109, in several statements I saw first hand. You claim 1500. Where is the source.
>> > Never read it...never heard it...and if it were true, we'd be hearing it from the rooftops on CNN or MSNBC.
>> >
>> Read what I wrote Greg, "thousands of people in a bind...... all of
>> the relatives waiting here for them.
>
>> Then I mentioned fifteen hundred at DFW International. There were more
>> at LAX and at JFK.
>
>Again...no cite. If it were true, which I seriously doubt, that means at least 10 family members per detainee were affected...per airport.

I don't know where you get that number but the fifteen hundred at DFW
were mostly family and friends of those who were denied flight from
those 7 countries. They were interviewed at length, so it wasn't just
a protest of Trump's order.

There were more.
http://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14427288/muslim-ban-airport-protests

[MNMikeW]

bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:

>>> at LAX and at JFK.
>>
>> Again...no cite. If it were true, which I seriously doubt, that means at least 10 family members per detainee were affected...per airport.
>
> I don't know where you get that number but the fifteen hundred at DFW
> were mostly family and friends of those who were denied flight from
> those 7 countries. They were interviewed at length, so it wasn't just
> a protest of Trump's order.
>
> There were more.
> http://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14427288/muslim-ban-airport-protests
>

Vox? LOL!!!!

THis article is about the PROTESTS, not stranded people. in fact, all it
said about stranded people is this:

"A bunch of people from these seven countries have gotten stranded in
airports, unable to enter the United States".

[bobby...@onramp.net]

It was verbally added by Trump. It will go to court.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

First of all I wasn't addressing stranded people, but families and
friends waiting in the U.S. for loved ones.
It was in several websites and all mentioned as protests. That
garners interest.
I just picked one mentioning several airports.
>

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-30 10:52 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
> bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:

>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:50:07 -0600, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>

>>>> The only terrorism going on here are the lone wolves, and they are
>>>> mostly on a watch list. Oh, then there are the idiot terrorists that
>>>> kill Muslims like in Canada yesterday.
>>>

>>> Crock. Why are they lone wolves here but terrorists in CA?
>>
>> The ones in CA are not Muslims.....they killed Muslims.

>
> That would explain why they yelled Allahu akbar then.

First of all, it was not "they": it was "he".

And he was white, and a right-wing nut.

[MNMikeW]

bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:

>>
>> Vox? LOL!!!!
>>
>> THis article is about the PROTESTS, not stranded people. in fact, all it
>> said about stranded people is this:
>>
>> "A bunch of people from these seven countries have gotten stranded in
>> airports, unable to enter the United States".
>>
> First of all I wasn't addressing stranded people, but families and
> friends waiting in the U.S. for loved ones.
> It was in several websites and all mentioned as protests. That
> garners interest.
> I just picked one mentioning several airports.
>>

Umm, they probably WERE just protests. But that is what you get for
reading Vox.

[MNMikeW]

You have not idea what you are talking about.

[Moderate]

bobby...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>>
> First of all I wasn't addressing stranded people, but families and
> friends waiting in the U.S. for loved ones.
> It was in several websites and all mentioned as protests. That
> garners interest.
> I just picked one mentioning several airports.
>>

I saw the protest in Dallas. Muslim men and women praying on their
knees.

Oh wait, there were no women. They aren't allowed to pray with men.

I know you libs love to keep your women segregated behind closed doors.


--

[Moderate]

MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

> bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>
>> It was verbally added by Trump. It will go to court.
>
> You have not idea what you are talking about.
>

None.
--

[bobby...@onramp.net]

As a matter of fact, I had never heard of Vox, but after googling for
a source it was one of many. I just used it because it mentioned
several international airports, including DFW.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

I know EXACTLY what I have said is FACT.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

The NY times says, after printing the part of the Executive Order on
the matter of Religion:
(you have to scroll down because this article is an annotation of
each portion of the order)

"As a general matter, this will give priority to Christian refugees
over Muslim ones. Though framed in a neutral way, this part of the
order may raise questions of religion-based discrimination. Mr. Trump
has said that he means to favor Christian refugees".

"That violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment
of religion, according to David Cole, the legal director of the
American Civil Liberties Union. “One of the critical questions with
respect to the validity of executive action challenged under the
Establishment Clause is its intent and effect,” he wrote in a blog
post. “If intended to disfavor a particular religion, it violates the
Establishment Clause.”


From:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/annotating-trump-immigration-refugee-order.html

[Dene]

The point remains....109 detained. Virtually all were eventually allowed in.

The protesters and leftist media spewing made a mountain out of a molehill..resulting in needless protests and inconvenience for thousands.

The fault lies with the media and the small minded people who believe their propaganda, hook-line-sinker.


-Greg

[MNMikeW]

Please explain now one "verbally" adds something to an EO?

[MNMikeW]

You might want to keep this in mind next time you are lecturing someone
about not paying attention.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 3:46:48 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:48:03 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:30:05 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >bobby...@Onramp.net wrote:
> > >
> > >>>> at LAX and at JFK.
> > >>>
> > >>> Again...no cite. If it were true, which I seriously doubt, that means at least 10 family members per detainee were affected...per airport.
> > >>
> > >> I don't know where you get that number but the fifteen hundred at DFW
> > >> were mostly family and friends of those who were denied flight from
> > >> those 7 countries. They were interviewed at length, so it wasn't just
> > >> a protest of Trump's order.
> > >>
> > >> There were more.
> > >> http://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14427288/muslim-ban-airport-protests
> > >>
> > >
> > >Vox? LOL!!!!
> > >
> > >THis article is about the PROTESTS, not stranded people. in fact, all it
> > >said about stranded people is this:
> > >
> > >"A bunch of people from these seven countries have gotten stranded in
> > >airports, unable to enter the United States".
> > >
> > First of all I wasn't addressing stranded people, but families and
> > friends waiting in the U.S. for loved ones.
> > It was in several websites and all mentioned as protests. That
> > garners interest.
> > I just picked one mentioning several airports.
> > >
>
> The point remains....109 detained.

In but one day.

But the scope of the screw-up was actually much, much bigger.
First, there were also travelers left stranded in other nations
as well as some who were denied boarding at the gate. Plus the
EO was initially so broad that it affected the freedom of travel
of 500,000 green card holders (even if they didn't happen to be
traveling on that one particular day):

<http://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14425150/green-card-ban-muslim-trump>
<https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-muslims/514844/>

> Virtually all were eventually allowed in.

And what has been asked before (but dodged): was this before
or was it after the Federal Court Stay?

> The protesters and leftist media spewing made a mountain
> out of a molehill..resulting in needless protests and
> inconvenience for thousands.

Sally Yates was fired for trying to uphold the Constitution.


<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/01/31/daily-202-trump-sacking-acting-a-g-raises-new-questions-about-his-respect-for-the-rule-of-law/588feeb8e9b69b432bc7e09d/?utm_term=.f8b5bcc0b23b>

<http://theweek.com/articles/654332/how-donald-trump-destroy-rule-law-america>

<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0>

<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-breakdown-rule-of-law-muslim-ban-a7554776.html>


-hh

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

Its Constitutional Law 101:

Intent, as derived from sources outside of the letter
of the law, is defined as within the boundaries of the
Courts when interpreting Laws. See:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation>




-hh

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:46:45 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>The fault lies withthe media and the small minded people who believe their propaganda, hook-line-sinker.
>
>
>-Greg

You just don't get it. If you were detained in Hawaii after your wife
and kids were allowed to get on a plane, you'd be furious. Add to it
that you weren't going to be allowed to return because of a political
act. There would be more than one upset about it. Your wife, all of
your family, her family and your friends at home would be waiting at
the airport in a frenzy.

The 109 you keep mentioning isn't the problem, it's the hundreds of
others in 7 countries who would be in your situation suggested above.
Now add to that all those in the U.S. who would be in the situation
that your family and friends faced. Does that explain it to you?

[Dene]

But in fact I do get it. Protecting our country from terrorists is dirty business. I think about it every time I have to go through security at an airport. I had a bottle of good booze taken away, because of 911.

American citizens come first Bobby!

-Greg

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 4:41:26 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

> BobbyK wrote:
> > You just don't get it. If you were detained in Hawaii after your wife
> > and kids were allowed to get on a plane, you'd be furious. Add to it
> > that you weren't going to be allowed to return because of a political
> > act. There would be more than one upset about it. Your wife, all of
> > your family, her family and your friends at home would be waiting at
> > the airport in a frenzy.
> >
> > The 109 you keep mentioning isn't the problem, it's the hundreds of
> > others in 7 countries who would be in your situation suggested above.
> > Now add to that all those in the U.S. who would be in the situation
> > that your family and friends faced. Does that explain it to you?
>
> But in fact I do get it.

If actually true, what you then proceeded to write doesn't even
come close to illustrating actual comprehension.

> Protecting our country from terrorists is dirty business.

There's many threats out there, and they all go through a
systematic assessment of not only what they are and their
significance, but also what the various options are to try
to protect against them ... and how much each one costs. From
there, a Risk:Benefit is done to prioritize the allocation of
finite resources. Not doing this right actively sabotages this
deliberative, well informed prioritization process.

In plainer language, the Mexico wall isn't cost-effective,
which is why it is bullshit: the money would be better spent
elsewhere.

> I think about it every time I have to go through security
> at an airport.

Given just how much in resources has been poured into that
threat vector, that's one of the least places to be worried.

> I had a bottle of good booze taken away, because of 911.

Because you weren't paying attention to the rules? Or because
you were actually travelling on Liquids Zero Day?

FWIW, I was travelling that day and lost a tube of toothpaste
and shaving cream.

> American citizens come first Bobby!

Nope: Rule of Law comes first.


-hh

[bobby...@onramp.net]

I believe that you initiated that.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:41:24 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

!

>American citizens come first Bobby!
>

Whoosh! That is a goalpost move.

[Dene]

Whoosh yourself. The purpose of the "ban" is to protect American citizens.

-Greg

[Dene]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 2:19:18 PM UTC-8, recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:

>
> In plainer language, the Mexico wall isn't cost-effective,
> which is why it is bullshit: the money would be better spent
> elsewhere.

Your average Border Patrol agent thinks differently.

> > I think about it every time I have to go through security
> > at an airport.
>
> Given just how much in resources has been poured into that
> threat vector, that's one of the least places to be worried.

I'm not worried. It's the hassle I don't like....all because of radical Islamic terrorists.

> > I had a bottle of good booze taken away, because of 911.
>
> Because you weren't paying attention to the rules? Or because
> you were actually travelling on Liquids Zero Day?
>
> FWIW, I was travelling that day and lost a tube of toothpaste
> and shaving cream.

Fireball went straight to the trashcan. And yes...it was in my carryon. Bags had already been checked.

Lesson learned.

> > American citizens come first Bobby!
>
> Nope: Rule of Law comes first.

The rule of law serves society...not the other way around. The "ban" serves Americans.

-Greg

[bobby...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:40:59 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

Another Whoosh. The discussion above was not about the ban but its
harm done to many who aren't being banned.
>

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:44:49 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

> -hh wrote:
> >
> > In plainer language, the Mexico wall isn't cost-effective,
> > which is why it is bullshit: the money would be better spent
> > elsewhere.
>
> Your average Border Patrol agent thinks differently.

And you've worked with their managers professionally on physical
security capabilities to know this? Or have you just read about
their Union wants better pay & more jobs?

> > > I think about it every time I have to go through security
> > > at an airport.
> >
> > Given just how much in resources has been poured into that
> > threat vector, that's one of the least places to be worried.
>
> I'm not worried. It's the hassle I don't like....all because of radical Islamic terrorists.

Funny then about how those metal detectors and luggage scanners
were in airports before September 2011.

> > > I had a bottle of good booze taken away, because of 911.
> >
> > Because you weren't paying attention to the rules? Or because
> > you were actually travelling on Liquids Zero Day?
> >
> > FWIW, I was travelling that day and lost a tube of toothpaste
> > and shaving cream.
>
> Fireball went straight to the trashcan. And yes...it was in my carryon.
> Bags had already been checked.
> Lesson learned.

You avoided answer the question.

> > > American citizens come first Bobby!
> >
> > Nope: Rule of Law comes first.
>
> The rule of law serves society...not the other way around.

Got a literary cite that actually supports that?

Because the Oxford English Dictionary has defined "rule of law" as:

"The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a
constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the
principle whereby all members of a society (including those in
government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed
legal codes and processes."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law>

In plainer english, law as an authority which constrains, as a matter
of principle, all of society equally.

Here, let me highlight that for you in CAPS:

"The AUTHORITY and influence OF LAW in society, esp. when viewed as a
CONSTRAINT on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the
PRINCIPLE whereby ALL members of a SOCIETY (including those in
government) are considered EQUALLY SUBJECT to publicly disclosed
legal codes and processes."


> The "ban" serves Americans.

It is straight from Animal Farm.


-hh