patrick.net

Which countries, and by extension majority religion, did the Lautenberg/Specter Amendments discriminate against?

The answers would be: Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam. So in application, in my mind, the US didn't favor a specific religion over another, nor did it discriminate against a specific majority religion.

The amendment favored non-Muslims from Iran.

Section 5 of Trump's EO allows what multiple International Conventions, Treaties, and USC definition of a refugee includes: That persecuted members of minority religions are valid persecuted refugees and thus can be exempt from an entry ban.

The members of the majority are seldom persecuted.

If Robart has his way, it would be illegal to take in Jews or Dissident Lutheran Pastors or JW's from the next Nazi Germany, if you banned German immigration.

Or Armenians from the next Turkish Genocide if Turks were banned from entry.
Or Falun Gong practicioners from China.

In a body of recent research, MRI studies show that democrats use less reason and more emotion in their decisions, and that Republicans showed more grey matter in certain areas of the brain:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3572122/

So if there is truth to this story, and this blogs claims of emoting, etc, this may explain the cognitive denial of why when the Polls were incorrect, that the democrats used emotion to brush aside the fact of misleading polls, and then were upset when their belief in the Polls were ill founded.

Likely the Pollster were of the same political persuasion as most of the press.

Note that the medical article tips self reliance to the Republican MRI activity - this has been a major observation of mine in regards to my friends in rural vs city habitations.

So it would be a great medical brainscan study to determine if the concentration of liberals near urban areas also.

Also, in my job most of the Republicans tend to be straight shooter, and Dems tend to be into perception/deception. While the employment of many city, county,state, and fed workers may lead to having politics being more important than performance, this is not universal and do not see this as much with Engineers. (however, I have long been told by my Science/Eng friend that the pragmatics lead them so).

IRAQ HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
Fact challenged RETARDS!
DOH! Did aereoplanes fly into the TWIN TOWERS?
How could that have happened?
REPUBLICANS!

HEY YOU says

IRAQ HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Fact challenged RETARDS!

DOH! Did aereoplanes fly into the TWIN TOWERS?

How could that have happened?

REPUBLICANS!

Before it was a Bush admin failure, it was first a Clinton administration failure.

It's not newsworthy when Al Qaeda attacking US targets off US soil. But when it happens on US soil, then it becomes impossible for any news organization to avoid

Blurtman says

Why liberals are emoting, fact challenged nincompoops

Why liberals conservatives on both the left and right are emoting, fact challenged nincompoops

Fixed that for ya.

Oh, I can't bake a cake for a gay couple because I'm such a special snowflake. Oh, I can't listen to a Milo debate because I'm such a special snowflake.

Same diff.

Dan8267 says

Oh, I can't bake a cake for a gay couple because I'm such a special snowflake

Analogies often go off target, as this one has. The cake bakers were objecting on religious grounds, which one would hope, have some level of consistency. Ferguson is objecting for who knows what reason, but he exhibits flawed consistency, i.e., he is for the favored immigration status for persecuted religious minorities, but objects to the favored immigration status for persecuted religious minorities.

MMR says

It's not newsworthy when Al Qaeda attacking US targets off US soil. But when it happens on US soil, then it becomes impossible for any news organization to avoid

MRI study saw cognitive dissidance is shown in liberals with notable lack of activity in reasoning areas of brain.

It not their fault, as they did not see it on MSNBC. They do not reason as much, more often relying on emotions, so they might not connect the Embassy bombings to 9/11.

If MSNBC did not link the Africa Embassy bombings, and the O'crats therefore did not hear about this much, because a Liberal was in office, and the media would not dare publish negative press on liberals, then did the 9/11 bombings go easier because the media was nearly mum on the embassy bombings.

Blurtman says

Analogies often go off target, as this one has. The cake bakers were objecting on religious grounds, which one would hope, have some level of consistency.

Not quite off target. The left fascists claim with equal certainty that hate speech is something morally objectionable. Free of religion means freedom of morality regardless of whether or not the moral code is published by some old institution. So the left can make equally valid religious grounds claims as the right.

In any case, both are wrong. The left is wrong that their religious/moral beliefs outweigh the rights of others. The right is also wrong for that same reason. A business that refuses to serve the whole community and discriminates against a historically oppressed minority is in violation of their business license and the law. Their business license should be revoked. If their job requirements violate their religious beliefs, they should quit their job or their religion.

They have no more say in choosing which laws they obey for religious reasons as I have. Paying taxes that support a military that commits acts of torture go against my moral beliefs. I could call them "religious" beliefs even though they have nothing to do with religions, the supernatural, or superstitions. That certainly does not make them any less important or valid. If beliefs based on what a pope or cleric says are protected, then all moral beliefs are regardless of where they come from. I belong to a religion of one, based on rationality rather than mystical nonsense, but it serves the purpose of moral guidance. Hence it is protected by the First Amendment.

Yet, I still have to pay taxes that violate my moral beliefs. I had to register for the selective service, which also deeply violated my moral beliefs. There are many laws that I and others consider highly immoral and unethical, yet still must obey.

Blurtman says

The amendment favored non-Muslims from Iran.

Should read up on the entire 1990 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, as I think you are stating that it favored non-Muslims from Iran only. It didn't. It was broader by amendments than that, and so was not specifically enacting something biased against a specific religion.

When the president says he will ban immigration from Muslim nations, and then pens a bill dealing with immigration from predominantly muslim countries, how else are we/the courts to interpret him?

Dan8267 says

In any case, both are wrong. The left is wrong that their religious/moral beliefs outweigh the rights of others. The right is also wrong for that same reason. A business that refuses to serve the whole community and discriminates against a historically oppressed minority is in violation of their business license and the law.

Well said.

[stupid comment limit]

The selective service and paying taxes for unjust wars violates "Thou shalt not kill". Strip searches and body cavity searches and pat downs violate modesty morals and religious doctrines. Anti-drug laws violate religious practices involving hallucinates. I could easily make the case, as many, many people have, that certain drugs are a "spiritual" experience just like going to church or praying is. Laws requiring the submission to photographs violate certain religious beliefs. One could easy decide to institute a religious doctrine forbidding the paying of any taxes, or being fingerprinted, or being incarcerated. Would the state stop forcing these things onto people who have religious doctrines forbidding them? Hell no.

The fact is that religious beliefs are not protected in our society. If they were, the government would not be able to anything that violated a person's most ludicrous or self-serving religious beliefs. The state only tolerates pre-approved religions that do not conflict with the state's power to control people and take resources.

Rew says

When the president says he will ban immigration from Muslim nations, and then pens a bill dealing with immigration from predominantly muslim countries, how else are we/the courts to interpret him?

Trump is banning immigration from all Muslim nations? Or mostly those with ongoing sectarian violence and disorder that makes vetting impossible due to conditions on the ground? The sole exception being a wholly ho-hum 'signal' about Iran's Ballistic Missile tests?

MMR says

IRAQ HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!


Fact challenged RETARDS!


DOH! Did aereoplanes fly into the TWIN TOWERS?


How could that have happened?


REPUBLICANS!

+
"recent research, MRI studies show that democrats use less reason and more emotion in their decisions"

= Q.E.D.

T L Lipsovich says

Trump is banning immigration from all Muslim nations? Or mostly those with ongoing sectarian violence and disorder that makes vetting impossible due to conditions on the ground? The sole exception being a wholly ho-hum 'signal' about Iran's Ballistic Missile tests?

Clearly not. He is using it as a justification though, as realities on the ground haven't somehow magically changed since he has been in office. Still to date, since 1980, zero refugees have attacked us. That would be a 100% effective rate in our ability to screen refugees as potential terrorists, regardless whether the vetting was new-Trumpian-extreme, or not.

Entitlemented says

"recent research, MRI studies show that democrats use less reason and more emotion in their decisions"

= Q.E.D.

* cough * fear is an emotion * cough *

#LizardsForTrump

(hint, I'm referring to 'lizard brain' by this, if you missed it.)

Dan8267 says

Blurtman says

Why liberals are emoting, fact challenged nincompoops

Why liberals conservatives on both the left and right are emoting, fact challenged nincompoops

Fixed that for ya.

Oh, I can't bake a cake for a gay couple because I'm such a special snowflake. Oh, I can't listen to a Milo debate because I'm such a special snowflake.

Same diff.

Oh, right! Like that time a mob of raging conservatives beat up people at random and burned Berkeley because of cake!
Or wait, that didn't happen. The cake example is refusal to participate, not an act of aggression.

It's really not the same thing at all.

Quigley says

Oh, right! Like that time a mob of raging conservatives beat up people at random and burned Berkeley because of cake!

Quigley, do you actually read what you respond to? Did I compare beating people up to not baking a cake? No, I didn't.

Obviously using violence is a whole new level of stupidity, but it would be a complete lie to say that even 10% of the protestors where using violence. Furthermore, my point still stands. All conservatives, the left, the right, and other groups, act like special little snowflakes where they can't stand living in a world where people don't conform to their culture, whether that culture is filled with seventy different "genders" or people who are "saved by Jesus" doesn't matter. It's still "you're in my tribe or you're my enemy" mentality.

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me that in the past few days every fucking conservative on the right has put away all their batshit crazy beliefs like
- god hates fags
- global warming is a hoax
- Jesus loves America
- flag burning is treason
- Harry Potter leads to witchcraft and Satanism
- people who smoke pot should go to jail while people who drink alcohol are patriots
- everyone will get rich if only we let the rich have more

These are some pretty stupid ass beliefs.

Rew says

Should read up on the entire 1990 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, as I think you are stating that it favored non-Muslims from Iran only.

No, I am stating that with regards to the Muslim majority Iran, it favored non-Muslims only.

Rew says

Clearly not. He is using it as a justification though, as realities on the ground haven't somehow magically changed since he has been in office. Still to date, since 1980, zero refugees have attacked us. That would be a 100% effective rate in our ability to screen refugees as potential terrorists, regardless whether the vetting was new-Trumpian-extreme, or not.

Not true. It's a form of deception. The Whole Tsarnaev clan arrived as refugees. The whole family was full of petty crooks, as the entire rest of the Tsarnaev clan can attest to. The Parents themselves have been arrested and convicted on charges like shoplifting $1200 worth of merchandise. Turns out before Boston Bombing, the Elder Brother murdered 3 people in Cold Blood, including his own boxing buddies. Because they weren't refugees anymore, the Media half-truthfully reports this as "They weren't refugees".

When a non-lawyer trained American hears this - not just Betty Lou the Waitress but Donna Jackson the DMV Clerk - they say "Oh, they were never refugees. They came normally." And the talking point authors know this.

That being said, 2 Iraqi Refugees in Kentucky, who were former Al-Qaeda volunteers, were tracked down on the basis of fingerprints placed on IED devices in Iraq that were used to kill US Soldiers. They admitted it in court. That's terror -- and the Holy Vetting Process That Works Wonderfully As It Is failed to catch any of this.

I believe there are several others including lots of Somalis.

Dan8267 says

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me that in the past few days every fucking conservative on the right has put away all their batshit crazy beliefs like

Isn't this a bit unfair? Asking for every single conservatives to change their minds in a few days, while allowing that 10% of the Leftists are batshit insane violence instigators and that's just gonna be that way?

By the way, original post you compared baking a cake to protesting Milo. I just compared those actions based on the most current events and how those actions played out. Crazy is as crazy does!

T L Lipsovich says

Not true. It's a form of deception.

So where is the huge number of refugees who have attacked domestic US citizens in mainland US? I don't think you listed one that met that criteria? Right?

Blurtman says

No, I am stating that with regards to the Muslim majority Iran, it favored non-Muslims only.

That is what you are saying, which is incorrect, as the act in total also favored other minority religions, from other areas of the world. Correct?
Therefore it wasn't a general bias against Muslims. Correct?

Rew says

That is what you are saying

Ferguson's stated objection was that the persecuted religious minorities paragraph in the EO violated the constitution as it favored refugees based upon religion. By that measure, he should also object to the Lautenberg amendment, as with regards to Muslim majority Iran, it does the same. With regards to Iran, the amendment does not favor Muslim refugees as it specifically favors non-Muslims.

The amendment was originally designed to favor Russian Jews from the former Soviet Union, (using Ferguson's language), which I suppose should also be objectionable to Ferguson if he were an honest person, which he apparently is not.

Quigley says

Dan8267 says

But hey, prove me wrong. Show me that in the past few days every fucking conservative on the right has put away all their batshit crazy beliefs like

Isn't this a bit unfair? Asking for every single conservatives to change their minds in a few days, while allowing that 10% of the Leftists are batshit insane violence instigators and that's just gonna be that way?

That's not what I said.

The statement I made implies that as of a few days ago, rightist conservatives were still 100% endorsing all the batshit crazy ideas that they have been for the past 40 years. So unless that has suddenly changed, which is unbelievable as you have just agreed, then the rightist conservatives are still 100% batshit crazy.

In any case, the moral of this story is that conservatives are fucking worthless whether they are on the left or the right of this stupid, one-dimensional political worldview. Conservatism is bad regardless of the arbitrary cultural preferences of a given tribe. We should all be liberals.

Rew says

So where is the huge number of refugees who have attacked domestic US citizens in mainland US? I don't think you listed one that met that criteria? Right?

Rew, I try explaining this again. When reporting the "No Refugees", the media discounts anybody whose citizenship process began as a Refugee/Asylee. So if somebody came to the country under a refugee/asylee program and then after they got citizenship or permanent residence killed somebody, it's half-truthed - because it's technically true - that they weren't a refugee/asylee.

The two Iraqis living in Bowling Green were former IED bombers trying to kill American troops and for all we know succeeded. Their fingerprints were on bomb and remote detonation devices. This was only found AFTER they received beaucoup taxpayer settlement money to live in Kentucky as refugees

AFAIK, The aftermath of this would have been the first time Obama banned entry, and I believe he did so again in 2015.

Trump is being called Hitler (well, yet again, he's been called Hitler for a year) because he's "Pausing" Iraqi entry just like Obama did.

T L Lipsovich says

Rew says

When the president says he will ban immigration from Muslim nations, and then pens a bill dealing with immigration from predominantly muslim countries, how else are we/the courts to interpret him?

Trump is banning immigration from all Muslim nations? Or mostly those with ongoing sectarian violence and disorder that makes vetting impossible due to conditions on the ground? The sole exception being a wholly ho-hum 'signal' about Iran's Ballistic Missile tests?

Why did Trump leave us open to attacks from Public Enemy #1, Saudi Arabia?

All Islamic terrorism, it's organization and funding, comes from Saudi Arabia. Have you ever heard of 9/11?

errc says

Why did Trump leave us open to attacks from Public Enemy #1, Saudi Arabia?

All Islamic terrorism, it's organization and funding, comes from Saudi Arabia. Have you ever heard of 9/11?

Yeah, why did OBAMA reinstate the Visa Express Program, and further allow Saudi Students to participate in an express program for students that even France and Germany aren't part of?

Why didn't Obama stand up to Saudi Terror?

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-approves-saudis-for-trusted-travelers-program/

And why did TLL Lips vote for someone who is the same or worse than Obama?

Obama isn't President, Trump is. Very telling that you are unable to answer the question

Pausing immigration of people who mostly hate America is EXACTLY THE SAME as rounding up Jews and gassing them to death by the millions!
HEIL TRUMPLER!

joeyjojojunior says

And why did TLL Lips vote for someone who is the same or worse than Obama?

errc says

Obama isn't President, Trump is. Very telling that you are unable to answer the question

Your guy expanded Saudi Access to the US without an interview in Saudi Arabia, yet you're complaining my guy has taken no action yet - but did announce there would be extreme vetting coming soon, after the pause allows a big revamp.

You don't think between repealing Obamney Corporate Care, the Sectarian Violence Pause, the Wall, Rampant Political Violence by the Left, etc in the past two weeks doesn't have enough to deal with that he should start something with Saudi Arabia, who has tons of Congressmen on their payroll?

Besides, the whole thing is disingenuous; if Trump included Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the rage against the Ban by Neoliberals would be doubled.

Omitting the country that is the source of all Islamic terrorism renders the actions wholly ineffective. Unless you are saying that Trump is ignorant to this fact

My guy LOL

Quigley says

Pausing immigration of people who mostly hate America is EXACTLY THE SAME as rounding up Jews and gassing them to death by the millions!

What's funny is that if the Neoliberals get their way, they'll entirely remove the ability of the US Government to ban entry by the nation they come from. Why?

"National Origin" is part of the Amendment that bans discrimination. So if we ban North Koreans: "Your Honor, this is national origin discrimination. Like Hitler! The Government can't refuse entry by nationality. Or religion. Or race. Or Sex. Everybody has the right to enter the US and the Government can't stop it!"

If the injunction pushers get their way, you couldn't ban Germans while admitting Dissident Lutheran Pastors, JWs, and Jews from Nazi Germany. That would be prejudice on Religion!

errc says

Omitting the country that is the source of all Islamic terrorism renders the actions wholly ineffective. Unless you are saying that Trump is ignorant to this fact

Why did Obama expand their access to US entry, then?

"You don't think between repealing Obamney Corporate Care, the Sectarian Violence Pause, the Wall, Rampant Political Violence by the Left, etc in the past two weeks doesn't have enough to deal with that he should start something with Saudi Arabia, who has tons of Congressmen on their payroll?"

That might be it. Or it might be that he doesn't want to hurt the value of his properties.

I just hoped that Trump cared more about US citizens and security than he did about his wealth. And who cares what neoliberals think? I'm talking about Trump saying he wants to improve US security but not actually including any of the countries where terrorists who target the US actually come from.

Why did Obama expand their access to US entry, then

I wanted Trump to fix Obamas mistakes, not double down on them.

Do you plan on using the "Its Bush's Fault" defense for Trumps entire term?

T L Lipsovich says

Why didn't Obama stand up to Saudi Terror?

This was not on CNN much, which did not give the Odemos a chance to Emot, and like the research says, Odemos use emotion over logic, so that the media implicitly controls the group(think) rage.

The MRI paper on Dems vs. Reps has answered a lot of questions I have built up over 50 years of trying to determine different mindsets.

Dems - I pray, please use logic when warranted, and emotion when you feel sensitive, (but please fire up your neurons in your reasoning/logic center and run the data through there!)

From the perspective of an atheist who has patiently put up with all of the Christian bullshit around here, there's at least some pleasure watching them have to put up with other religions.

OTOH, from the lips of Trump. “We got a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

By the way, if you think I'm nuts about the injunction pushers trying to ban the parens patriae power of Government:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/trump-travel-ban-legal/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html

That's right, the US may be the first country in the history world where the multi kult bans the ability of a Government to refuse entry to foreigners based on the national origin discrimination against the individual applicants. Unbelievable! Super Extremist.

"It's not a neoliberal plot". Oh?

https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-presidential-ban-immigration-certain-countries-illegal