Repeating History and the Muslim Ban

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

It is fascinating to see how the famous George Santayana quotation, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” is being tossed on its ear since the Trump presidency began. Trump’s actions and choices of advisors has prompted many comparisons to Nazis and Hitler. The coining of “Alternative Facts” drew immediate parallels to “1984” and “Newspeak.” The firing of Sally Yates, who committed the unspeakable crime of saying “No” to a president who was acting in what she believed was an unconstitutional manner–just as she assured Senator Jeff Sessions she would do when she was first being approved for being the assistant AG–caused many to invoke the Saturday Night Massacre of Richard Nixon. So not only is history being attended to, but it is being invoked all over the place.

It is impressive to me how in just ten days Trump has turned this country on its ear. Those who opined that the Trump we saw during the campaign was not an accurate reflection of how he would govern have been proven as wrong as those of us who thought he had no chance of winning the presidency in the first place. His anti-Mexican tirades were supported by his being the first president in thirty years to have no Hispanic or Latino members on his cabinet. His anti-Muslim rants and declaring that he would ban them from entering have been borne out by his actions, although he was considerate enough to ban only Muslims coming from countries where the citizens have killed exactly zero Americans. As opposed to those who brought down the Twin Towers; they’d still have been clear to enter. And by startling coincidence, Trump has business connections to every Muslim country permitted to come to the U.S.

“But it’s necessary!” I’ve been told. “All terrorists are Muslims,” I’m informed, “so we have to ban all of them.” Which I suppose makes sense if you’re willing to admit that since all members of the KKK are white Christian males, we need to ban all White Christian males.

Perhaps the final word on the Muslim ban is reflected in another quotation, this one from Ben Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” The original quote was actually in a very different context, having less to do with Liberty than it did taxes during war time, but subsequent generations found that it spoke in a broader sense than Franklin originally intended, and I’m pretty much fine with that. Sure makes more sense than listening to a Trump tweet.

PAD

50 comments on “Repeating History and the Muslim Ban”

  1. “…many comparisons to Nazis and Hitler.”
    No need to look outside the US: it reminds me more of the camps for the population of Japanese origin during World War II.

  3. Actually, no. I’ll add one more thing.
    .
    Everyone is referencing 1984. Some are referencing Animal Farm. Go to Amazon and search for a book by Todd Strasser called The Wave. Then look for the DVD of the 1980s TV film and the Blu of the recent German remake of the film.
    .
    Looking around at some of my fellow Americans right now, it’s far more chilling a story than I once felt it was.

    1. Seconded.
      .
      Although I haven’t seen the movie since high school, I still remember the impact on the students who’d joined “the Wave” when they’re “introduced” to their “great leader” in a scene near the end.
      .
      Rick.

  4. The ban for those countries applies to ALL the citizens from that country. Many Liberals who are protesting this “Muslim ban”, are leaving out the Christians and other faiths from those countries that are included in the ban. Whether this is by convenience or ignorance remains to be revealed.

    1. Fontaine, what Trump did was inform his advisors (after repeatedly informing everyone else) that he wanted to ban Muslims. He was told that this was legally problematic. As such, he told his people to get it as close to that goal as they possibly could. This is what Rudy Guiliani told the news media.
      .
      Trump and his people have also made it clear that they will prioritize Christians refugees (after Trump repeatedly lied about how hard it was to enter the US as a Christian refugee) and that those detained due to his executive order would be vetted for entry on a “case by case” basis.
      .
      These are facts. These are also the games he’s playing to get around his ban being outright struck down. These are facts that his supporters like to leave out. Whether this is by convenience or ignorance remains to be revealed.

      1. ” Whether this is by convenience or ignorance remains to be revealed.”

        Can’t it be both?

        PAD

    2. Well, this is worse, because the fate of the christians in these countries is not one I would like to share. So, christian refugees from, say, Iraq, looking to the US for a refuge are, basically, screwed. Then there’s the matter of the people who worked for the US army there. If the Donald want to become the next De Gaulle, he’s on the right track. However, he should remember that the betrayal of the Harkis was one of the worst thing the General has done.

    3. You really find it hard to form coherent A + B = C conclusions, don’t you.
      .
      Trump chose those countries because they’re Muslim majority countries. The fact that they have non-Muslim minorities is irrelevant. The point is, he wants to target Muslims, and that’s why he chose those countries. If some non-Muslims get caught by that net, so what? That doesn’t disprove his intent, especially when he flat-out stated his intents during the recent Presidential campaign. Did you not here him last December when he explicitly called for a “total and complete shutdown of all Muslims entering the United States”? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBA) Or a database for tracking Muslims in the United States the previous month?
      .
      If Trump attempted some feeble misdirection by also banning bullfighters from the planet Mars, would you be so easily fooled as to argue that that proves that it’s not Muslims he’s targeting? Are you really that dense?

      1. Apparently not as dense as Liberals who like to pick and chose what they’re offended by and what they’ll read into that same offense.
        Facts always seem to matter to Liberals…as long as it fits the convenience of the Narrative.
        The bottom line is if all people from Texas were banned from traveling to some other state for example, the racial make-up of the population of the state and their religious affiliation would be irrelevant. The fact that they were from Texas would make all of them banned.
        Just because you want to read something exrra into the Ban doesn’t make it real.
        Also, as a good Liberal, you should be ashamed at marginalizing Christians and other faiths. You’re supposed to be inclusive.

      2. Fontaine, You ignored my points before, so I’ll repeat them her with bonus content. It’ll be the comment equivalent of the special edition Blu-Ray that comes out six months after you’ve already bought the newly released standard edition one.
        .
        What Trump did was inform his advisors (after repeatedly informing everyone else) that he wanted to ban Muslims. He was told that this was legally problematic. As such, he told his people to get it as close to that goal as they possibly could. This is what Rudy Guiliani told the news media.
        .
        Trump and his people have also made it clear that they will prioritize Christians refugees (after Trump repeatedly lied about how hard it was to enter the US as a Christian refugee) and that those detained due to his executive order would be vetted for entry on a “case by case” basis.
        .
        I’m sure we all know exactly how the case by case looks will go under Trump’s Presidency.
        .
        Plus, well, baby steps, Fontaine, baby steps.
        .
        Donald Trump vows to ban Muslims entering US
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBA
        .
        He stated repeatedly what he wants to do. Sorry it bothers you so much that people are standing up to him to prevent him from doing it.

      4. Fontaine: Facts always seem to matter to Liberals…as long as it fits the convenience of the Narrative.
        Luigi Novi: As Jerry and others have pointed out, the only ones for whom this description applies are the ones like you who have drunk Trump’s Kool Aid, since the status of the ban as a Muslim one is a fact, inasmuch as Trump himself called it such during his campaign, when he called for a Muslim registry in November, and a “complete and total shutdown of all Muslims entering the United States” in December.
        .
        Your only rationalization is to claim that the ban emphasizes countries rather than religions, and to point out that those countries also have non-Muslim minorities, as if this somehow mitigates the truth of which group is Trump’s intended target. Tell me, Fontaine, why do you think those countries were targeted, if not because they were Muslim majority countries? It certainly isn’t because they are the origin point of terrorists with a history of killing Americans on U.S. soil, since he omitted Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Egypt, Turkey, etc., from his ban, since he has business interests with those countries.
        .
        On the subject of non-Muslim minorities in those countries, do you really think that Trump cares if if some non-Muslims are barred entry from the U.S. in the process? This is a guy who tried to use his cronies in government to evict a little old lady from her home in Atlantic City so that he could build a parking lot extension over it. This is a man who terrorized a the residents of a village in Scotland because he wanted to build a luxury golf course next to it, ruining a precious ecological landmark, shutting off the villager’s water, blocking their view of the sea, and even attempting to charge them for a fence he built between his property and theirs (sound familiar?)–does this sound remotely like someone who cares one bit about other human beings, and who would therefore mind one bit if some non-Muslims were affected by his ban?
        .
        You seem to hold this up as as some type of counterargument that falsifies the truth of the Muslim ban. It isn’t. It’s a technicality, one that shows that it is you who are impervious to facts, and gifted with a talent for deliberate self-deception.

      1. And Rev. Wulff misses the call! He’s back, disemvoweling his own comments no less!

        All I can say is, never underestimate the spiteful devotion of a truly self-righteous political troll. *shakes head sadly*

  7. I’d say that anyone who says “all terrorists are Muslims” has never been to Northern Ireland, but I don’t have to, since the most recent high-profile act of terrorism happened this past weekend, in Canada, perpetrated by a white French-Canadian, against Muslims.

    1. And yet, you won’t get any of the mainstream media calling white males terrorists. But you will get Faux News screaming that a Muslim witness *must* be a terrorist!

      As a side note, up until about 5 minutes after the inauguration, I figured Pence was the one in charge of America the Clusterf*ck. Instead, the (Grand) Wizard behind the curtain is Bannon.

    2. I’d say that anyone who says “all terrorists are Muslims” has never been to Northern Ireland…

      Or Oklahoma City.

  9. “Those who opined that the Trump we saw during the campaign was not an accurate reflection of how he would govern have been proven as wrong”
    .
    Those who thought Trump would be any different in office than he was on the campaign trail are all delusional morons. From the moment he glided down the escalator Trump remained steadfastly repugnant. With his flip-flopping on issues it was the one constant.
    .
    Everyone who said he’d change once in office recognized just what he is. Why else would then need to protest that he’d change once in office? They knew exactly what he was and voted for him anyway. In many cases, because of it.
    .
    Their claims that they thought he’d change once in office are just excuses they’re trying to make for themselves because they don’t want to be held responsible for doing the reprehensible thing they did that they knew at the time was reprehensible.

  10. Svn ntns. Sx hv n fnctnl gvrnmnts, th svnth s th wrld’s bggst spnsr f trrrsm. Plnt f thr mslm ntns ddn’t mk th ct.
    .
    mng ths tht ddn’t mk th ct wr Sd rb, Trk, Jrdn, gpt, Lbnn, Kwt, Bhrn, nd bnch f thr Mslm ntns.

    (Pre-disemvoweled for your convenience)

      1. My, ain’t you quite the rabid homophobe, and I see our host is cool with hate speech.

        Anyway, since this thread is seriously out of touch with reality, let me try to inject a little.

        1) There are seven nations listed on this temporary ban (90-120 days).

        2) Six of the seven have no functioning government, so they have no one we can check with about just who is showing up at our borders.

        3) Six of the seven have major problems with Muslim fundamentalist extremists, who have seized many government facilities — including those that can produce legitimate-looking IDs, and are using them to fabricate fake IDs for their operatives.

        4) The seventh country on the list is Iran, the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism.

        5) The list does not contain many other Muslim nations, like Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Kuwait, or a host of others.

        6) The “none of those countries have sent terrorists here before” argument is splendid if you’re trying to prevent past attacks. However, if you’re worried about future attacks (which would be facilitated by Points 2 and 3 above), then you should be paying attention to those places. There’s a reason we didn’t immediately go after Japan and Germany after 9/11.

        We now return you to your regularly-scheduled civil discourse involving dìçkš in mouths and President Fûçkfáçë Von Clownstick.

    2. Jay Tea: My, ain’t you quite the rabid homophobe, and I see our host is cool with hate speech.
      .
      Luigi Novi: Opining that you’re an Kool Aid-drinking Trump cultist who toes the Trump line is not homophobia. You’ve taken the metaphor that I used and instead of emphasizing this aspect of it—which any idiot would have and likely did understand—you chose to spin it by emphasizing an aspect of it that was not emphasized.
      .
      Should we understand that you’re too obtuse to understand the salient aspect of the metaphor, or too deceitful to abstain from pretending that you don’t in order to justify the spin?
      .
      Jay Tea: The list does not contain many other Muslim nations, like Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Kuwait, or a host of others.
      .
      Luigi Novi: And when you consider that Trump has business dealings in Saudri Arabia, Egypt, etc, the reason for it becomes clear. Too bad you can’t address this.
      .
      Jay Tea: The “none of those countries have sent terrorists here before” argument is splendid if you’re trying to prevent past attacks. However, if you’re worried about future attacks (which would be facilitated by Points 2 and 3 above), then you should be paying attention to those places.
      .
      Luigi Novi: Not really. If you want to prevent future attacks, a reasonably intelligent starting point is with countries that have an established history of having citizens who’ve killed Americans on American soil, as opposed to those who have not. Only an idiot would argue that the only reason for doing so is solely to “prevent past attacks”.

      1. Hey, I didn’t MAKE you associate a homosexual act with an insult, you came up with that all on your lonesome.

        Own your homophobia, hater.

        And our host, who has previously been given awards for his support for gays, has chosen to intervene on the side of the guy spewing the homophobic slurs.

        How disappointing.

    3. Again, the insult does not lie in the fact that act I described was homosexual. It lies in the submission of you to Trump’s propaganda. You could just just as well have been a woman, and the observation would still have worked. But continue to play obtuse if you wish. The truth remains that if you could falsify a single thing I or others had said, you would’ve done so, yet your response to my falsifying your statements about the Muslim Ban is go silent and your response to my falsifying your accusation of homophobia is to pretend not to have read what I wrote and simply repeat it ad nauseum. Quintessential trolling, but not worth a warm squirt of piss if you want to convince anyone here anything in matters of fact or reason.

      Adios.

    1. How many people sued Obama (should we call him Clownstick Fûçk-Fáçë, too?), when he put the same travel ban on Iraq?

      1. Obama never did any such thing.

        What happened in 2011 is that the State Department’s issuance of SIVs to Iraqi applicants slowed (not stopped) after two individuals in Kentucky were identified as having possibly been improperly screened.

        Neither President Obama nor the State Department banned or stopped those applications entirely. The slowdown affected a single type of visa from a single country, and not all entry from several countries, and not because of religion. The slowdown occurred in order to implement enhanced screening procedures, and did not target all countries with Muslim majorities with which Obama did not have business dealings, as is the case with Trump.

        Your analogy is false and as is usually the case with you and your Alternative Facts ilk, fact-free.

        http://www.snopes.com/president-obama-ban-muslims-2011/

      2. I don’t know.
        .
        How long are alternative facts Trumpies going to keep repeating the same lies about that even after that lie has been debunked pretty thoroughly over the last few days?

      4. I already replied to this a day before you posted. You might want to actually read a thread before commenting on it.
        .
        Here’s what I wrote:
        .
        Oh, and let’s save some time. Before some conservative dìçk shows up and declares that Obama did the same thing years ago, here’s an article that details the truth to undercut that claim:
        http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
        PAD

  12. The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism. White supremacists and other groups that have also carried out attacks would no longer be targeted.
    .
    Exclusive – Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam: sources
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-trump-focus-counter-extremism-program-solely-islam-234303791–finance.html
    .
    But it’s not about fostering an atmosphere of discrimination against a single religion among his dimwitted faithful followers. Really. Just ask his supporters here in this thread.

    1. Meanwhile, white male terrorists are in control of the White House and continue to commit mass murders all over the country (and now Canada, too).

  14. Minor point: Franklin apparently never, in fact, said that.
    .
    According to a website i encountered, it appears in a report to the Royal Governor (i believe) from a commission studying something, which Franklin printed but did not write.
    .
    This does not necessarily make it any less valid a point.
    .
    So long as the words “essential” and “temporary” are accorded their due importance.

    1. Funny, because every website I found stated either that he did write that letter or “very likely” wrote that letter, so I’m going to stick to attributing it to Franklin unless he shows up and denies writing it.
      .
      PAD

  15. And now KellyAnne “Alternative Facts” ConJob invents an Obama era terrorist attack, the Bowling Green Massacre, that never actually happened to rationalize the Trump Administration’s idiotic act of discrimination. Hey, she point blank said on the Sunday shows a while back that the Trump Administration would promote lies to counter actual press coverage, so why should we be surprised in the least by her actions here?
    .
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/02/kellyanne-conway-refers-to-fake-bowling-green-massacre.html
    .
    But I’m sure Jay “I Never Met a Conservative Lie I Didn’t Love” Tea will swing by to explain how the massacre was totally real and Obama’s fault to boot in order to keep up his solid track record of defending the indefensible.

  16. Largest Muslim Countries (by population*)

    1. Indonesia (not banned)
    2. India (not banned)
    3. Pakistan (not banned)
    4. Bangladesh (not banned)
    5. Egypt (not banned)
    6. Nigeria (not banned)
    7. Iran (Yay! we finally got one!)
    8. Turkey (not banned)
    9. Algeria (not banned)
    10. Morocco (not banned)

    But yeah, it’s a “muslim ban”, and only ther other side uses “alternative facts”

    *via wikipedia

    1. *BTW, the “not banned” on that list accounts for 63% of the world’s Muslim population. If I made it the top 20 countries, it’s more like 75% not banned. But please… let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story

      1. In the case of at least some Muslim majority countries–Saudi Arabai, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Egypt–Trump has business dealings in them.

        But if it’s not a Muslim ban, then please answer two simple questions:

        1. How do you explain the fact that prior to his election, after his election, and after the initial announcement of the ban, Trump himself referred to it as a Muslim ban, referred to it as such when announcing that it would be expanded, and that this is corroborated by some of his supporters, like Rudy Giuliani, when he related how he and Trump devised it? Also, why does your side never address this point, despite the fact that it’s been pointed out so many times, including in this discussion thread?

        2. If it’s not a Muslim ban, how do you account for which countries were included and which ones were not, given that a number of countries from which terrorists who have killed Americans on U.S. soil were excluded from the list? In your view, what was the criterion for exclusion/inclusion, if not the very thing that Trump, Giuliani, et. al, explicitly said was the criterion?

    2. And by startling coincidence, Trump has established business dealings in Indonesia, India, Egypt, and Turkey. Of course, it’s possible he has deals cooking in the remaining ones, something we might better be able to discern if he were to release his tax returns. And he has business dealings in a number of other Muslim countries, including several that are responsible for over 5000 American deaths, none of which are banned.
      .
      So the actual evidence, as opposed to the fabricated nonsense that the right embraces, would indicate that Trump is more concerned with his self-interest than American safety.
      .
      Again, real facts versus the right’s alternative ones.
      .
      PAD

      1. So call it a “brown-people-who-don’t-have-pre-existing-business-relationships-with-him ban. Hëll, call it a “blackmail-the-rest-of-them”” ban. Call it “ridiculous-security-theatre” ban.
        But calling it a muslim ban so is just not true, and provably so.

        If people are going to clutch their pearls over this, then at least acknowledge that the facts don’t match the narrative you’re pushing.

Comments are closed.