By Landon Farley

You could convince me to air drop any number of tons of food and water into distressed and oppressed regions of the world. You all clearly have an abundance of compassion, but most of you have not delved very deeply into the actual language of the policy, or the potential repercussions of encouraging heavy flows of humans that have no idea what it is like to live in a mostly free and open society.

In the top six most heavily populated Muslim countries in the world, reside 53% of the world’s Muslims. None of them from any of those countries, are part of a temporary (I repeat, TEMPORARY, 90 day immigration halt). (…/world-top-ten-countries-with-l…).

Since the hysteria has sent you into the land of Unthinking, here is a link to an extremely well cited explanation of the Executive Order, and to other pertinent laws, some of which include the exact same verbiage of immigration laws enacted by president Obama upon the onset of the Syrian Civil War:…/donald-trump-refugee-execut….

One particular that I would like to point out is the verbiage relating to immigration officials’ legality in accepting “persecuted religious minorities.” The hystericals are so hysterical that you have not stopped to think about what that means. Immigration officials may make exceptions for acceptance into our country (even during the “ban”) for any religious minority that has been persecuted by a country and or it’s religious theocracy. What that means for that particular region of the world is that we can legally accept Sunni and or Shia Muslims that have been persecuted by a given opposing majority. To put it simply, we can accept Shia Muslims who have been persecuted by Sunnis and or we can accept Sunni Muslims that have been persecuted by Shias.

For a very clear-eyed editorial regarding the whole scenario, I suggest this:…/trump-muslim-ban-goal-ban-s…. I would note (and complain about) a problem within the onset of the implementation, which has since been handled, that: it took DHS Secretary John Kelly more than 24 hours to clarify that it did not include green card holders. Including current green card holders would have been a disastrous, devious and malicious addition to this policy.

It has also been pointed out by many that there is prior precedent for this action from both Democratic Presidents and Republican presidents (See, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and George Bush).

But I want to go another route. Speaking of a “clear-eyed” view of the situation; many of you don’t have one.

Ask yourself…seriously…Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen…would you seriously consider ever taking your family to any one of those places? I am guessing that if you are a serious person, your answer is “no.” So, the “why?” becomes very important. And the answer is simple. Because those places would be very dangerous to travel to even if you were a Muslim, let alone the fact that you are an American. You and I both know that you would not be, or feel, safe in any of those countries. Don’t you think that it is prudent and pragmatic to thoroughly vet, even make sure what all is encompassed in our vetting processes, the people who come from places you wouldn’t take your family?

So why are you so keen on inviting them in?

You want to be against Donald Trump. Understandable. But not at the price of suicidal empathy.

And then you have the two major contradictions in your own worldview that you have created by encouraging unmitigated travel into the United States by people from those countries. 1) You loathe Donald Trump and the fact that in your mind, he represents the most bigoted form of American Islamophobic bigotry imaginable. So I would ask you: why would you want your “fellow humans” to have to be hulled up for any amount of time under such a bigoted, anti-Muslim president/America? And 2) Many of the same voices expressing such disdain for this policy are the same voices that shout inside the same echo chambers of Bernie Sanders when you decry that “climate change” is the greatest threat to national/human security. You continue to make the case that man is causing climate change and it is caused predominantly by the over consumption associated with what you claim is capitalism (i.e. consumerism). Ask yourself this: where will human beings consume more resources and perpetuate the continuation of advancing climate change through gross consumerism? Anywhere in the Middle East? Or, the United States of America? Where will humans have a greater access to…stuff?




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s