If the Trump administration wants to reduce anxiety and fear, perhaps they ought to issue more definitive statements. Incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus did no one any favors with his comments on Meet the Press on Sunday when he said, while President-elect Donald Trump and his team were not planning to create a Muslim registry, they would not rule anything out.
“Look, I’m not going to rule out anything,” Mr. Priebus said. “We’re not going to have a registry based on a religion. But what I think what we’re trying to do is say that there are some people, certainly not all people… there are some people that are radicalized. And there are some people that have to be prevented from coming into this country.”
He added, “And Donald Trump’s position, President Trump’s position is consistent with bills in the House and the Senate that say the following: If you want to come from a place or an area around the world that harbors and trains terrorists, we have to temporarily suspend that operation until a better vetting system is put in place.”
Mr. Priebus pushed for a tougher screening for immigration, stating, “When a better vetting system is put in place then those radical folks, they’ll not be allowed in, but then others will be allowed in, but only until that is done. That’s what Gen. Michael Flynn believes and that’s what President Trump believes.”
Mr. Flynn, who was selected to the post of national security adviser, earlier this year denounced Islam as a “political ideology” that “hides behind” religion. He said in May that he supported a Trump campaign call to bar Muslims from entering the United States.
Carl Higbie, with ties to the Trump team, said last week that there were legal precedents for a Muslim registry. Many took this statement as referring to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
Mr. Higbie backtracked on Thursday, stating that he was not referring to internment camps, but added that registration was not inherently troublesome.
“We use register like it’s a bad thing,” Mr. Higbie said. “You have to register your car. Most states, like Connecticut, my own, we have to register our guns. We have to register a ton of things… as long as it keeps America safe.”
Mr. Priebus backed off Mr. Flynn’s statement that “fear of Muslims is rational,” stating that the president-elect did not think that religious judgments should be categorical.
“He believes that no faith in and of itself should be judged as a whole,” Mr. Priebus said. “But there are some people in countries abroad that need to be prevented… there are some people that need to be prevented from coming into this country. So I think that’s where 99 percent of Americans are at.”
There are those who have suggested that the President-elect should be given the benefit of the doubt, but it seems only natural for Muslims and civil rights groups to view these developments with some alarm and trepidation.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, issued a statement on Sunday calling the remarks by Mr. Priebus regarding “problematic” aspects of Islam and his refusal to rule out a “registry” for Muslims as “more examples of the Islamophobia exhibited by President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team.”
When asked on ABC about Trump’s appointment of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and the general’s claim that “Islam is not a real religion, but a political ideology masked behind a religion,” Mr. Priebus said Mr. Flynn’s views are in line with those of the president-elect and added: “I mean, look, phrasing can always be done differently but clearly there are some aspects of that faith that are problematic.”
CAIR said it has called on “President-elect Trump not to appoint retired Flynn as his national security adviser because of his history of anti-Muslim comments and associations. Flynn was later appointed to that position, despite calling Islam a ‘cancer,’ claiming fear of Muslims is ‘rational’ and being a current member of the board of advisers for the nation’s most virulent anti-Muslim hate group, ACT for America.”
“Our nation is not served by the denigration of Islam or by the introduction of ineffective and discriminatory policies targeting Muslims,” said CAIR Government Affairs Director Robert McCaw.
On Friday, CAIR expressed concern about a “troubling Islamophobic trend” in President-elect Donald Trump’s recent appointments and nominations, including Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions for the post of attorney general and Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo to head the CIA.
Given the current fears in many communities, the appointment of people who have expressed such viewpoints in the past is giving no comfort, and the failure of more reasonable people like Mr. Priebus to rule out the worst possibilities is likely to increase rather than decrease those fears.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Priebus said there would be no registry based on religion. They want to fully vet any possible radicals that might try and get into the country. I’m not seeing a problem with this and as Priebus stated most Americans agree.
but he hedged by saying he couldn’t rule anything out.
BP
“Priebus said there would be no registry based on religion.”
At the same time Priebus also said ” I am not ruling anything out,”. “Anything” to me would clearly include a registry. I suppose you also do not find it troubling that Mr. Higbie compared registering people by religion with the registration of objects such as cars and guns ? Also not troubling the key advisers to the president have called Islam a “cancer” and stated that “fear of Islam is rationale” ?
And as for that last statement “and most Americans agree”. Evidently by last count at least one million more voting Americans did not agree.
There were many issues in this election and just because someone voted for Hillary it doesn’t mean that they disagreed with every Trump position. I think you’ll find that even Democrats would like terrorists to be fully vetted so they don’t come here and kill people.
BP
“I think you’ll find that even Democrats would like terrorists to be fully vetted so they don’t come here and kill people.”
And I would have truly liked to hear the specifics of our president elects exact objections to the current vetting system and what specific changes his “extreme vetting” would entail. But we did not hear that primarily because the campaign was done in slogans and sound bites, not in policy discussions. Are you aware of the specifics of his modified plan ? If so, please tell me how it is more effective than the current vetting system.
Tia wrote:
> I would have truly liked to hear the specifics of our president
> elects exact objections to the current vetting system
It is interesting that when no one has heard “the specifics” on what the President elect plans to do many on the left just assumes he is going to start a Muslim registry, make them wear yellow stars, and ultimately ship them off to camps in boxcars…
Give them a chance, Trump doesn’t even take office for two months.
give them a chance to violate everyone’s civil rights before we speak out?
BP
His “chance” on this particular issue for me ended with his extreme right wing appointments. To me this was a clear message that he does not consider those who believe that Islam is a religion ( not a cancer), and those of us who do not approve of the promulgation of misogynistic, racist, and religiously discriminatory ( Bannon) are not amongst his definition of “all Americans” that he has stated it is his intent to serve. “Chance”over on civil rights based on his words, actions and appointments.
Chance on other issues…..we will see.
Trump ran as a conservative, so of course he’s going to appoint conservatives to his team.
When Obama won he appointed liberals to his team, some radical leftists, Van Jones ring a bell?
Elections have consequences.
BP
I also noted that you chose not to address any of the direct questions that I asked you. A form of “crickets”, perhaps.
David wrote:
> Justice Watch: Not Allaying Fears of Muslim Registry
Predictions for the next week of Vanguard headlines:
Justice Watch: Young girls living in fear that the President Elect will come to their school and grab them
Justice Watch: ADL Fears that Trump will send Jews (including his daughter and grand kids) to camps in Boxcars
Justice Watch: Clinton supporters fear a backlash after Trump takes office
Justice Watch: Illegal aliens who don’t pay taxes fear that Trump will crack down on them the same way Obama went after conservative groups
my prediction is you’re going to be why anonymous posting ends on the vanguard
What did SOD write here that was against the V rules?
BP wrote:
> What did SOD write here that was against the V rules?
I can only guess that my predicted headlines are so accurate that DP is sure that I must have broken in to David’s home this weekend to see his notes…
I think you made a good point here SOD. David and some of the other hysteria bunch have been throwing everything against the wall to see what might stick. So your future headlines are not all that farfetched.
SOD and BP
“What did SOD write here that was against the V rules?”
Absolutely nothing ! Which is why I do not favor eliminating his, or any other anonymous posts.
However, I would like to point out that all are invited to post statements completely devoid of any meaningful content such as SOD’s post of 6:49 am.
i don’t speak for the vanguard’s rules, i’m just speculating
As I already commented, I think SOD made a good point.
tia: is that really helpful to invite everyone to post meaningless drivel? this is why i don’t come on here much anymore. although i guess i can put sod on ignore – at least bp, makes points that are helpful
Tia wrote:
> I would like to point out that all are invited to post statements
> completely devoid of any meaningful content
I’m hoping that David might read my comments and BPs comments and realize that some of the stuff he is posting is just as bad as the stuff the crazy right wing blogs were posting 8 years ago:
Conservative Watch: Not Allaying Fears of Christian Registry
Conservative Watch: Gay men will try and convert your sons to their “lifestyle”
Conservative Watch: How long will it be before the Obama imposes sharia law…
SOD and BP
“Justice Watch: Young girls living in fear that the President Elect will come to their school and grab them”
There is one point that I found worth addressing in SOD’s post. The source of the fear is not that the president elect will come directly to “grab” them, but rather his is modeling for the youth of all of our communities a standard of behavior that is completely unacceptable. Would either of you not have intervened if you saw a young man “kitty grabbing” your daughter ? Did either of you teach your children that this was an acceptable form of behavior ? No ? Then why ridicule the real concerns that our children may have about the behavior of their peers ( from both sides of the “incivility is the new norm” political spectrum) ?
One other realistic concern in the eyes of my young women is the availability of medical services, both abortion and contraception. I am starting to get asked a question that I thought I would never hear in California. Should I change my form of contraception now based on the results of this election ? Now before you start belittling this, consider that all forms of contraception are not created equal in their efficacy or cost. I am now having women who are covered by the ACA asking me if they should switch now from their preferred form to an IUD good for 10 years because they fear that it may no longer be available to them if the ACA is repealed. Others are concerned that any form of contraception that is considered an abortifacient by some religions would no longer be available, thus the need to obtain an IUD now that will last 10 years just in case the current “leadership” should last 8 years.
Think how this might feel to you if your prostate medication or your ability to obtain a vasectomy was being directly regulated by the government. Would those not be rights and coverage that you might be concerned about if they were being threatened. And if you are going to say that women’s health rights are not being threatened, I refer you to the tape of our president elect stating directly that “there must be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions. Yes, his handlers subsequently had him “walk that back”. But again, on in given day, which president elect is going to show up ? I don’t know. And I doubt that you do either.
Maybe Tia can let us know why she took the time to type a 400 word response to a post that was “devoid of any meaningful content”?
P.S. I’m wondering if Tia really thinks that Trump (a non religious NY Liberal who was a registered Democrat that invited Hillary Clinton to his wedding) is really planning to ban abortion and birth control (something that GW Bush a religious TX Conservative who was a life long pro-life Republican did not come even close to doing)?
if he says something – are we supposed to disregard it? and if yes, how do we know what to believe and what not to believe?
SOD
To your first question, even a meaningless attack can present room for comment upon its errors as an example of its lack of value.
To your second point:
“I’m wondering if Tia really thinks that Trump (a non religious NY Liberal who was a registered Democrat that invited Hillary Clinton to his wedding) is really planning to ban abortion.
I see that there are several possibilities. Either he really meant what he said that he wants Roe vs. Wade overturned and women punished for abortion ( both in his own recorded words) and that this is his actual intent. Or one might believe that he was knowingly lying and making these statements as a pander to his base to get elected. I am not sure which I would see as the more nefarious, but I am hard pressed to come up with a positive interpretation of his actual words. If you can see another possibility, please share. I admit that I could be overlooking something.
I believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn’t ban abortions. I believe it simply leaves the abortion decision to each of the individual states.
Matt: “I believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn’t ban abortions … it simply leaves the abortion decision to each of the individual states.”
That’s a likely outcome of overturning Roe, and what Trump has said. For women living in most of the country (the red states), however, that would be tantamount to a ban.
SOD: “Trump … a NY Liberal who was a registered Democrat.” Ridiculous. Trump is no more a liberal than Reagan, who had also been a Democrat and a union official. Trump has few apparent convictions, but his positions as a candidate ranged from conservative to reactionary.
Come on Trump in 1989 took out a full page ad asking them to bring back the death penalty for the Central Park 5 who turned out to be innocent – just how liberal was he ever?
Eric wrote:
> For women living in most of the country (the red states),
> however, that would be tantamount to a ban.
You can fly from Utah (a red state) to CA for less than $200 (less than $100 if you shop around). Going to the beach is not “banned” in Utah, it is just a “little harder” than for most people who live in California.
There are quite a few pro-choice Republicans (the link below says 40%) which sounds about right and keep in mind that pretty much every year I have been alive the percentage of people that are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and pro-marijuana legalization has been increasing as older religious people die and younger more open minded people register to vote.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/22/nearly-60-percent-of-us-thinks-abortion
Yeah, at Utah’s minimum wage of 7.25 that’s a mere 27 1/2 hours of labor, plus the cost of the procedure, plus time off work, plus somehow arranging to go do that under duress and often trying to keep it secret from family members.
Don wrote:
> Utah’s minimum wage of 7.25 that’s a mere 27 1/2 hours
> of labor, plus the cost of the procedure, plus time off work
I’m wondering if Don thinks it will cost less and require less time off work for someone to give birth to and raise a child they don’t want?
P.S. I don’t know if they still do it, but Park City used to give a free lift ticket to anyone with a plane ticket to SLC dated that day and when you got a deal on airfare it was actually cheaper to fly to ski at Park City than drive to ski at Squaw Valley…
” at least bp, makes points that are helpful”
Post three examples, please.
play your own games
You couldn’t think of any either, huh?
Davis Progressive, now here’s a guy in Biddlin that’s a better example of why anonymous posting could end on the Vanguard.
SOD
“many on the left just assumes he is going to start a Muslim registry,”
No “assumption is needed regarding the suggestion of a registry”. The president elect has affirmed, and them subsequently denied that he would establish a registry on multiple occasions, some of which I have referenced on previous threads ( to which by the way you consistently did not respond). So I will just post a summary of his various and sundry comments on this topic as quoted directly, not as made up by me.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-muslim-registry/story?id=43639946
So pre election, he “walks this back” ( AKA denies that he ever said it although it is on tape, AKA lies …..”politically correct” right wing speak ?) and now that he is president elect, the idea is once again on the table according to his own advisors.
So much for left wing assumptions. Or do you not take the president elect at his own words……or perhaps are confused about which versions of his own words to believe and thus are just picking and choosing your favorites ?
tia is right – if the administration wants the left to stop complaining, stop floating stuff
Tia posted a link that says:
“President-elect Donald Trump‘s team said today that he had never advocated for “any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion” ”
Sounds clear to me, why go back and find some random comments where he never actually says “he wants a registry”. In 2004 Obama said: “I am not a supporter of gay marriage ” today he (and his staff) says he is a supporter if gay marriage.
I’m wondering if Tia believes the president is lying like Trump and his team (since if you say something that in a vague way that might lead someone to believe you think one thing you can never ever clarify that position or change your mind)?
So one of his leading candidates for the job arrived for his interview carrying his plans for the registry. Just google Kris Kobach. You’ll see the picture.
” is that really helpful to invite everyone to post meaningless drivel?”
This is an extension of everyone gets a participation medal. All opinions are equally valued whether they are born in reflective contemplation, testosterone deficient depression or cynical opportunism. Ignorance of grammar, syntax and civil language grant one special dispensation from the owner and admins.
“is that really helpful to invite everyone to post meaningless drivel?”
I invite anyone to participate. I am fully aware that some here consider what I write to be “meaningless drivel”. Others appreciate my posts, or at least say that they do. But if we cannot listen respectfully to each others ideas ( when that is what is being presented instead of just name calling or criticism based on no evidence) then the Vanguard is failing as a forum for the exchange of ideas.
I wonder if anyone posting here could even describe the process refugees already go through to gain admittance to the US.
Don
I couldn’t. So I looked it up.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states
This site is the easiest I found to follow. I am truly curious about just exactly what more “extreme” vetting our president elect had in mind as this looks pretty comprehensive to me.
BP
“David and some of the other hysteria bunch have been throwing everything against the wall to see what might stick.”
Perhaps you are not including me in the “hysteria bunch”, but just in case, I would like to point out that I have backed everything that I have said with direct quotes from the president elect and/or his surrogates. If you do not even take your own preferred president elect at his own word, what are you basing your assertions on ?
if by everything you mean things actually stated by the president elect – what do you expect?
“If you do not even take your own preferred president elect at his own word,”
That flip-flopping, suede shoe salesman? He doesn’t believe most of what comes out of his mouth.
if we cannot hold him accountable for his own words, we have no rules of engagement.
DP wrote:
> if we cannot hold him accountable for his own words,
> we have no rules of engagement.
Why not wait to see what he actually does?
If I had a dollar for every lie politicians (of both major parties) told in just the last election cycle I would have more money than Trump.
Regan never ended abortion, Bush gave us new taxes, Clinton didn’t end welfare and Obama didn’t let everyone keep their doctor (or close Gitmo).
Unlike Tia don’t think that we are going to have an increase in American guys grabbing women with Trump as president just like we didn’t have an increase in guys doing unusual things with cigars with Clinton as President.
Let’s all sit back and see if Trump starts actually sending everyone a “chicken for every pot” before going out with your PETA friends to spray paint Nugget and protest Trump killing chickens
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/nugget-market-vandalized-by-animal-rights-activist/
SOD
“Why not wait to see what he actually does?”
I did wait to see what he “actually did”. And what I got was Sessions, Bannon, Flynn and Pompeo. These are real actions and are unacceptable to me, not on the basis of their “conservatism” but on the basis of their racism, xenophobia, religious discrimination, and misogyny, all as expressed in their own words. I don’t know what else I should be waiting for. Perhaps he will make a good pick for the Department of Education ? For Health and Human Services ?
Yes, we do not know all that he will do. But what is wrong with criticizing what he already has done with which we disagree ?
“Priebus said there would be no registry based on religion.”
Perhaps not explicitly. But basing a registry on countries or regions that are predominantly Muslim is a pretext for religious discrimination. It would be similar to requiring voter ID only from individuals living in predominantly black neighborhoods, for example. Don’s 7:41 a.m. post raises a good point. What is the current vetting process and how is it inadequate?
Mr. Priebus pushed for a tougher screening for immigration, stating, “When a better vetting system is put in place then those radical folks, they’ll not be allowed in, but then others will be allowed in, but only until that is done. That’s what Gen. Michael Flynn believes and that’s what President Trump believes.
The sufficient vetting system to screen legal immigrants was always in place in USA .
https://www.uscis.gov/refugeescreening
I believe that propaganda for the better vetting system and Muslim’s registry propaganda is just a scare crow propaganda to discourage the candidates with suicide thoughts and belts around the body loaded with explosives to come to this country and to harm people here and to discourage these folks with such thoughts who lives already in the United States . Our best ally Israel has a perfect screening system than the American Intel and the INS is using it as well . The INS is under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security .
BP
“Trump ran as a conservative, so of course he’s going to appoint conservatives to his team.”
The problem is not conservatives. I briefly took heart from the appointment of Priebus with whom I disagree politically, but believe is probably a thoughtful, rational conservative. The problem is the appointment of religious bigots ( “Islam is a cancer”), racists, and misogynists. ( And yes, I have presented my evidence of this in their own words now on several occasions.)
You’re like a broken record Tia,
bigots, racists, misogynists oh my……..
BP
I don’t expect you to be concerned since non of this will likely affect you directly, and from the majority of your previous posts, anything that does not affect you is either denied or trivialized. By the way, I am still awaiting your thoughts about the quotes from each of these individuals that I have posted and you have failed to respond to since you obviously have time to respond with movie quotes.
Matt
“I believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn’t ban abortions. I believe it simply leaves the abortion decision to each of the individual states.”
This is true. However, it is also clear to me that the president elect understands that many states will ban it since he said ” I guess that they will have to go to other states” in reference to women who could not legally obtain abortion in their own state. This will obviously be an option for women who have the financial ability to do so….so much so that at one point, I said to my own daughter, “Don’t worry about it, you will be fine” specifically because we can afford to cover any contingency she might encounter. As usual, the burden will fall most heavily on those who cannot afford to get on a plane or other conveyance and go to another state for what is now universally legal.
Again, I would ask you to consider it this way. Do you think that you should have to consider going to another state for a vasectomy because your state has banned them ?
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe
Thanks for posting the stats Don.
Does anyone still not believe this is an issue for women’s health care ? And let’s suppose for the moment that you don’t care about women’s health at all, how do you think that this is going to play out in terms of the social safety net, health care and education of these children many of whose parents are in no way able to care for them. Do you honestly believe that this will either end abortion or promote healthy families that you will not have to pay to support ?
Again?
I never considered a vasectomy… do you still recommend tubal ligation? Or is cutting/tying ‘tubes’ only for males?
“probably a thoughtful, rational conservative.”
Haven’t seen one since Wm. Buckley Jr..
George Will wrote some thoughtful columns, even if I largely disagreed with him.
I wonder if anyone posting here could even describe the process refugees already go through to gain admittance to the US.
Don Shor
I could describe the process refugees go trough to be admitted to the US. I went through this process in 1982. However , the waiting period for me to be admitted to US after the incarceration in the communist interment camp / prison was a lot shorter than for the non-political refugees in refugee camps. The non political refuges were waiting quite long ,sometimes for three years in the several refugee camps located in the Western Europe countries to get sponsor in USA , Australia, New Zealand or South Africa . The largest refugee camp in Europe is located in Traiskirchen , Austria
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/9/18/austria-syria-refugees-frustration-overcrowded-camps.html
Thank you for that contribution, Jerry… I truly appreciate it…
hpierce
You are very welcome.
The 3 terrorist attacks with the largest number of dead and wounded in recent history were the World Trade Center airline attack, the World Trade Center truck bombing, and the Oklahoma Federal building truck bombing. The World Trade Center attacks were carried out by Muslim terrorists. The Oklahoma bombing was carried out by a white male conservative military veteran terrorist. If we are going to put all Muslims on a special registration watch list, perhaps we should consider putting all white male conservative veterans on a registration watch list also. 😉
WesC
In regards to the white males conservative veterans registration watch list , I think that it was done after the Oklahoma Federal building bombing without making any noise about. Also , I think that the Oklahoma bombing diverted the FBI , NSA and CIA attention from these who meticulously planned and carried out the terrorist attack against the Trade Center .
I think you’re wrong.
In fact. if you were to believe some of the conspiracy theorists, the WTC thing was also meticulously planned by white,male, veterans… Osama bin Laden and Muslims were set up as the scape-goat. I believe more in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny than that
Did Obama just stop Trump’s Muslim registry?
According to the account in the Bee, it (program/policy) was established by the previous admin (Republican) and abandoned/inactive since 2011. The new admin. would have to “start over” to do something similar… not “prevention”, but clearly making it much more difficult to proceed. Something about throwing a tool into the works… a good, appropriate, and righteous move, in my opinion. [and a fitting ‘payback’ for what the NC governor did to his successor]
Howard
What I found strange about this Obama’s move is that it happened less than one month before he will leave the office . It happened just recently after and only 51 Democratic House members called for President Obama to permanently dismantle NSEERS. Why Obama did not do this five years ago. I am not sure if we would hear about it if Hillary Clinton won the election . The same applies to the ongoing deportation of millions . I am very skeptical that you or I would hear about the detention centers and the Obama’s build deportation monster machine if Hillary Clinton would won the election . Trump is Trump and he is loudly saying what he is going to do and people knows what to expect . However , this was the Obama who build lot of gulags and he silently deported 3,000,0000 and nobody was talking about . Sometimes I think that this guy had something different in his mind by building so many detention centers which could be used for completely different purpose. The Homeland Security , NSEERS, detentions centers makes me worry what the Big Brother is up to regardless who is in the White House . I am not paranoid nor conspiracy theorists but I have experienced in my life similar stuff under the different ideological color. The globalism is nasty stuff and government orders to love these who hates us and they would kill if they could is quite disturbing to me.