[Nigel Mace]

A remarkable performance from the opening concert of Celtic Connections festival in Glasgow - broadcast while Trump's EOs were starting to do their ignorant and brutal worst. Eloquent, humane and moving.
Find it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04q5cmf

[Jim Moonan]

Nigel, this is stunning. Liberating. Thank you.

[Brian Allgar]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

It is clear where the media stands. It ain't with Trump. You own the fake and alternative news right along with them. Enjoy.

The list you refer to was of "countries of concern", and Obama imposed certain visa-waiver restrictions to people who had visited one of those countries - a far cry from Trump's cruel and dictatorial blanket ban which is clearly aimed not at potential terrorists, but at all Muslims, including refugees from horrors for which America is at least partly responsible.

I can assure you that I don't own Breitbart or Fox News.

It is clear where most decent human beings stand, and "it ain't with Trump."

[Mark McDonnell]

Thank you for linking to that performance, Nigel. It's stunning.

[Charlie Southerland]

You still can't get it right, Brian. I'm worried for you. If it were a blanket ban on all muslims, no country where muslims hail from would be exempt from the EO. Come on, man. You can do better than this, can't you?

[Gregory Palmerino]

Originally Posted by Nigel Mace

A remarkable performance from the opening concert of Celtic Connections festival in Glasgow - broadcast while Trump's EOs were starting to do their ignorant and brutal worst. Eloquent, humane and moving.
Find it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04q5cmf

Nigel,

Thanks for that link. Another great reason for being a member of the sphere.

cheers,
Greg

[Ann Drysdale]

Thank you, Nigel.

[Julie Steiner]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

If it were a blanket ban on all muslims, no country where muslims hail from would be exempt from the EO.

Yes, Charlie, I'm looking at all the countries linked to terrorism that are left out of the ban, and am wondering why. Earlier you mentioned Trump's business interests being irrelevant, or even a positive. But if he's placing his business interests above our national security, that's a problem.

If the ban were really only about "keeping the country safe," I'd expect a lot of overlap between the nationalities of Muslim terrorists who have attacked on U.S. soil and the seven countries mentioned in the ban. But not one of the high-profile attacks mentioned by Trump and his staff in defense of the executive order involved people born in the seven countries affected by the ban.

They are using the 9/11, San Bernardino, and Orlando attacks to justify an executive order that wouldn't have affected any of those attackers.

And check out these two graphics from the Washington Post (too huge to put them in the post here, sorry, if you want to see them you'll have to visit them via these links--and actually, they display better if you just go to full article):

Graphic #1

Graphic #2

The full article mentions that Somalia is the birthplace of the guy who drove his car into a crowd at Ohio State last November and then knifed people, injuring 11. But he seems to be the only "bad dude" who might have been stopped by this ban.

Conclusion: Either the ban is more about making a big show of bullying Muslims from countries whose goodwill Trump deems expendable than it is about addressing actual security concerns, or Trump is spectacularly incompetent at addressing actual security concerns.

Or both.

Yikes.

A few quotations from the article, and then I'll stop:

“The ban is less about national security and more about advancing a worldview based on religious and racial exclusion,” J.M. Berger, a fellow with the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism at The Hague and co-author of “ISIS: The State of Terror,” wrote in an email Sunday. “It’s not likely to make us safer, and it is far more likely to help our real enemies, ISIS and al-Qaeda. We don’t do ourselves any favors when we make their talking points into reality.”

In a joint statement Sunday, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) — two leading defense hawks — echoed Berger’s points, saying they fear Trump’s order “risks harmful results” and could help terrorists with recruitment.

“Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism,” McCain and Graham said. They added: “This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country.”

[Andrew Frisardi]

To follow up on Julie's post: this new article in The Atlantic, about how Trump is building an autocracy, says a lot about his mixing of personal business interests and national politics. Add to that the information in this Guardian article about why Steve Bannon "wants to destroy secularism" and you get the current immigrant crisis.

Btw, notice that the Administration timed the announcement of Bannon's role in the National Security Council to coincide with the one about Muslim countries. The latter attracts much notice and uproar, while Steve B. slips in the back door.

[Brian Allgar]

Charlie, it should be obvious to even the meanest intelligence that I was referring to the total ban on Muslims from the countries on Trump's list. This is particularly clear since one of my points was the fact that no Muslims are banned from countries where Trump has business dealings. Try to get a grip on these relatively simple facts, old chap - or are you being deliberately obtuse?