March 15, 2017
By Alexander Burns
He lambasted the government, in particular, for asserting that because the ban did not apply to all Muslims in the world, it could not be construed as discriminating against Muslims.
TEXT (click here)
The title of the executive order is "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States."
I am sorry, but, every foreign person entering the United States is not a terrorist.
I have pointed this out before, the violent attacks within our sovereign borders are from citizens. Stopping foreign people from entering the USA is not solving the problem. The problem stems, at times, from 2nd Generation Immigrants in the USA. They hold dual citizenship and both men and women have strong feelings about what is occurring in the country of their original nationality.
It is only natural they should have these loyalties and feelings. However, to act on them to impress upon the American society it is not acting in favor of their former residential country is not going to work. These acts of violence only embolden the very people President Trump has promised to protect. These folks seek a simplistic scapegoat for political - fear tactics and it works. The violence will not unseat these hate mongers, it will galvanize them and their hate paradigm.
Suspending refugee programs is a human rights violation. None of the perpetrators of September 11, 2001 were refugees.
January 20, 2017
By Eric Levenson
...No person accepted to the United States as a refugee, (click here) Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up systematic procedures for accepting refugees into the United States, according to an analysis of terrorism immigration risks by the Cato Institute.
Before 1980, three refugees had successfully carried out terrorist attacks; all three were Cuban refugees, and a total of three people were killed.
Since the Cato Institute analysis was published in September 2016, a Somalian refugee injured 13 people at Ohio State University in November in what officials investigated as a terrorist attack. No one died.
In fact, the primary perpetrators of the major terror attacks have mostly been US-born citizens or permanent legal residents originally from countries not included in the ban.
Here's a look at the origin stories of the terrorists who committed major attacks in the name of radical Islam in recent years, including those in San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston and New York....
Laws in the USA carry brevity into a person's life. The weaker the law or executive order the more question there is as to it's application and false conclusions can be drawn. The biggest problem I see with these executive orders is the lack of facts.
September 11, 2001 is over 15 years without any such occurrence. The fact is that there was negligence in the executive branch of the USA at the time. That is a fact. The CIA finding out about al Qaeda attacking within the USA was ignored and set aside to be addressed three months after the warning expired. Concurrently, the FBI had their thumb on Zacarias Moussaoui. The FBI did such a thorough job the other nineteen terrorists denied his participation should he be caught entering a jumbo jet. The warning by the CIA stated such attack would occur within three months. It was never acted on.
US intelligence had these guys on their radar. AND IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF DAMN COMPUTER AND CYBER SPACE!
The point is there is no solid evidence that a travel ban would be effective. It would and has caused problems. USA laws no matter their origins have to be specific to their purpose otherwise too many Americans and/or foreign travelers get caught in the web. The facts are necessary to uphold. This travel ban is a populous document drawn up out of a paradigm of fear. For that reason alone it bears no brevity to national security.
The title of the executive order is "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States."
I am sorry, but, every foreign person entering the United States is not a terrorist.
I have pointed this out before, the violent attacks within our sovereign borders are from citizens. Stopping foreign people from entering the USA is not solving the problem. The problem stems, at times, from 2nd Generation Immigrants in the USA. They hold dual citizenship and both men and women have strong feelings about what is occurring in the country of their original nationality.
It is only natural they should have these loyalties and feelings. However, to act on them to impress upon the American society it is not acting in favor of their former residential country is not going to work. These acts of violence only embolden the very people President Trump has promised to protect. These folks seek a simplistic scapegoat for political - fear tactics and it works. The violence will not unseat these hate mongers, it will galvanize them and their hate paradigm.
Suspending refugee programs is a human rights violation. None of the perpetrators of September 11, 2001 were refugees.
January 20, 2017
By Eric Levenson
...No person accepted to the United States as a refugee, (click here) Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up systematic procedures for accepting refugees into the United States, according to an analysis of terrorism immigration risks by the Cato Institute.
Before 1980, three refugees had successfully carried out terrorist attacks; all three were Cuban refugees, and a total of three people were killed.
Since the Cato Institute analysis was published in September 2016, a Somalian refugee injured 13 people at Ohio State University in November in what officials investigated as a terrorist attack. No one died.
In fact, the primary perpetrators of the major terror attacks have mostly been US-born citizens or permanent legal residents originally from countries not included in the ban.
Here's a look at the origin stories of the terrorists who committed major attacks in the name of radical Islam in recent years, including those in San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston and New York....
Laws in the USA carry brevity into a person's life. The weaker the law or executive order the more question there is as to it's application and false conclusions can be drawn. The biggest problem I see with these executive orders is the lack of facts.
September 11, 2001 is over 15 years without any such occurrence. The fact is that there was negligence in the executive branch of the USA at the time. That is a fact. The CIA finding out about al Qaeda attacking within the USA was ignored and set aside to be addressed three months after the warning expired. Concurrently, the FBI had their thumb on Zacarias Moussaoui. The FBI did such a thorough job the other nineteen terrorists denied his participation should he be caught entering a jumbo jet. The warning by the CIA stated such attack would occur within three months. It was never acted on.
US intelligence had these guys on their radar. AND IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF DAMN COMPUTER AND CYBER SPACE!
The point is there is no solid evidence that a travel ban would be effective. It would and has caused problems. USA laws no matter their origins have to be specific to their purpose otherwise too many Americans and/or foreign travelers get caught in the web. The facts are necessary to uphold. This travel ban is a populous document drawn up out of a paradigm of fear. For that reason alone it bears no brevity to national security.
