January 29th, 2017

The press gets the vapors over Trump’s executive order on immigration

And when the press gets the vapors, so do its obedient readers. And yes, there are still plenty of those.

Another thing that happens is that I’m sometimes moved to violate my Never On Sunday rule and write a Sunday post. As you can see.

Every day there are certain internet sites that I check. One of them is memeorandum, which highlights a bunch of articles the memeorandum-powers-that-be have decided are the important must-reads of the day. I certainly don’t read them all, but I skim the headlines to get a rough idea of what’s being talked about, and if anything seems especially interesting I’ll read it.

Here’s memeorandum right now, as I’m writing this. You can see how very many stories there are—nearly all negative—about Donald Trump’s executive order regarding a temporary and limited halt to immigration from seven countries (countries which are not mentioned in the order; see this for a fascinating discussion of that) in which terrorism is rife. The coverage is so hysterical that one would think he had announced he would deport every Muslim in America. And in fact, quite a few of the article headlines disingenuously call it a “Muslim ban” (sometimes at least using the scare quotes, but sometimes not, as in this NY Times editorial entitled “Trump’s Muslim ban is cowardly and dangerous,” without any scare quotes at all).

Let’s see what the Times has to say:

First, reflect on the cruelty of President Trump’s decision on Friday to indefinitely suspend the resettlement of Syrian refugees and temporarily ban people from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the United States. It took just hours to begin witnessing the injury and suffering this ban inflicts on families that had every reason to believe they had outrun carnage and despotism in their homelands to arrive in a singularly hopeful nation.

The first casualties of this bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating policy were detained early Saturday at American airports just hours after the executive order, ludicrously titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” went into effect. A federal judge in Brooklyn on Saturday evening issued an emergency stay, ordering that those stuck at the airports not be returned to their home countries. But their future and the future of all the others subject to the executive order is far from settled.

It must have felt like the worst trick of fate for these refugees to hit the wall of Donald Trump’s political posturing at the very last step of a yearslong, rigorous vetting process. This ban will also disrupt the lives and careers of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been cleared to live in America under visas or permanent residency permits.

The Times goes on to a Holocaust reference, and then on and on and on in the same vein as that beginning. Remember that his ban is about delaying entry for people from suspect nations for between 90 and 120 days until better rules are put in place. That’s it. It’s not a ban on Muslims; it’s not even a ban. But the Times is misleading, and it is purposefully so. Believe me, most of the people I know will be talking about this and thinking about this as though it’s a Muslim ban.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I’m not a Trump fan. I also think this was a flawed presentation, especially the fact that there was not an exception for people already in transit. That had the effect of creating tailor-made visuals for the press to focus on, and undermined the policy in that way. I support the policy of introducing ideological vetting, however, and have for a long time—long before Donald Trump adopted the idea.

What’s more, I am firmly convinced that if, say, a President Cruz had announced something similar (and I believe he would have), and if he’d done it with an exception for people in transit and had also exempted those with green cards, that the press would have managed to give him equally negative coverage. That’s no reason that Trump had to play into their hands.

Actually, we can look at history to tell us that when President Obama put visa restrictions on individuals who had traveled to those countries, the reaction was crickets chirping. Or when Jimmy Carter banned travel from Iran during the hostage crisis:

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

I don’t recall a hue and cry or accusations of “Hitler” back then. And I bet there may have been people stuck in transit, too. But Carter was a Democrat, so it didn’t matter. What’s more, the country hadn’t yet lost its mind.

Some of the criticism of the executive order centers on Trump’s supposed selection of these countries and his lack of selection of countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia from whence many of the 9/11 hijackers hailed. But not only is that disingenuous because Trump didn’t name the seven countries; Obama did, but also because much has changed since 9/11. 9/11 was an event that helped to get America’s attention about terrorists’ intentions towards us, but since then terrorism’s major sites have changed somewhat and spread out.

On the question of whether the executive order applies to green card holders, it appears that it doesn’t, although early reports said it did. I’m basing that idea on this:

News reports suggested the White House overruled the Department of Homeland Security’s recommendations on excluding green-card holders from the executive orders. Preibus, on Meet the Press, denied that, then appeared to suggest that the order won’t affect permanent residents going forward, but when pressed appeared to contradict himself.

“We didn’t overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green-card holders moving forward, it doesn’t affect them,” he said. But when pressed by Chuck Todd, the show’s host, on whether the order affected green-card holders, he replied: “Well, of course it does. If you’re traveling back and forth, you’re going to be subjected to further screening.”

So it seems it will “affect” them, but the mechanism will be that they will be asked some more questions during transit—not that any ban will affect them. Here’s another article about the Priebus interview:

[Priebus] also suggested the executive order could come to encompass more than the current seven countries included in the ban, and that the order focused on people coming from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen because those were identified by Congress as “being the seven most-watched countries in regard to harboring terrorists.”

“Perhaps other countries needed to be added to an executive order going forward — but in order to do this in a way that was expeditious, in a way that would pass muster quickly, we used the 7 countries” already identified by Congress, he said.

Priebus added that the order was rolled out quickly because “this is all done for the protection of Americans, and waiting another three days, waiting another three weeks is something that we don’t want to get wrong.”

“President Trump is not willing to get this wrong which is why he wants to move forward quickly and protect Americans,” Priebus added.

You know what would have been a good idea? As this was announced, in addition to this long, complex, and rather legalistic press release, President Trump should have given a much shorter speech highlighting and explaining exactly what the order is and what it isn’t, and why it was being done so quickly. That way at least he would have made the press’s self-appointed job of obfuscation somewhat more difficult, although they would have probably been up to the task anyway.

[ADDENDUM: By the way, the NY Times has reported on the clarification about the green cards issued by the administration. But in doing so, the paper chooses the headline, “White House Official, in Reversal, Says Green Card Holders Won’t Be Barred.” But this was not some big reversal. In fact, the original report that green card holders would be banned was based on an email sent by Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman. But very quickly the matter was clarified by another spokesman (on Saturday), declaring that green card holders would merely undergo “routine rescreening.” That was somehow missed yesterday, and the whole thing is being treated by the Times as some enormous reversal announced today by Priebus.]

43 Responses to “The press gets the vapors over Trump’s executive order on immigration”

  1. n.n Says:

    The original, unadulterated Executive Orders:

    Executive Order 13768 of January 25, 2017 – Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States [federalregister.gov]


    Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements

  2. Big Maq Says:

    David French has a good rundown on the details of the EO:

  3. OM Says:

    Well the situation was reflected in prayer requests this morning from two progressive members of our congregation (which is conservative generally) and which the Pastor spoke of in his sermon. So for now the media spin may be working against the administration. Chaos and unrest were themes that were mentioned, as was the plight poor refugees. Unforced error by the administration.

  4. expat Says:

    One thing about those chosen countries: With the exception of Iran, none has a government that is in complete control of the country. It has been reported here that ISIS and related groups are printing false IDs so that terrorists can come in with the real refugees. I assume that we have other ways to get countries like Saudi Arabia to provide info on the validity of their national IDs. When you have a country in a civil war, you just don’t know who you are dealing with.

    It might be a good time to give a pat on the back to Muslim countries which themselves are trying to weed out terrorists and which coooperate with us to find those people willing to blow up and behead others.

  5. Chester Draws Says:

    [Priebus] also suggested the executive order could come to encompass more than the current seven countries included in the ban, and that the order focused on people coming from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen because those were identified by Congress as “being the seven most-watched countries in regard to harboring terrorists.”

    This is so much theater!

    Iran doesn’t produce terrorists. It sponsors Hamas, which is arguably a terrorist organisation, but is not made up of Iranians. Iran is on the list because it is at loggerheads with the US, not because it is a major source of terrorism.

    Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest supplier of jihadi terrorists for hire. You may have heard of Osama bin Laden. But it isn’t on the list, because the US is good mates with the Saudis.

    Lebanon, which actually has Hamas in huge numbers, isn’t on the list. But how many jihadis have come from Libya?

    Not a single one of the 911 terrorists would have been affected by Trump’s executive order.

    The order will have no effect on terrorism in the US. I presume Trump knows that. It’s pure theater, pandering to his base, and having the side effect of enraging his opponents.

    If he continues to try to govern the US on this basis — what looks good and annoys his opponents — he will turn in to a mirror image of Obama.

  6. Liz Says:

    See this ABC report on the IG report on green cards, so they are not 100% valid and really should be checked. A good time is when you are trying to return from one of the 7 countries on the list. http://abcnews.go.com/US/thousands-green-cards-simply-missing-ig/story?id=43701333

    I also heard that Trudeau said the people are welcome in Canada, so I checked out their website. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/outside/index.asp

    This link above cites the requirements to be a refugee. You have to be sponsored or be able to provide for yourself, you have to pass medical and security exams. The criteria for refugees include: you are outside your home country; and cannot return there due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on: race, religion, political opinion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group, such as women or people with a particular sexual orientation.

    You are not eligible to resettle to Canada as a refugee from outside Canada if: you have another durable solution for protection, such as an offer to be resettled in another country;
    you become a citizen of another country and have the protection of that country; you choose to return to live in the country you had left; or the reasons for your fear of persecution no longer exist.

    There is also a long list of conditions that make you inadmissible to immigrate to Canada – http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/inadmissibility/index.asp

    The list is includes if you were convicted of drunk driving or drugged driving, you will probably be found to be criminally inadmissible to enter Canada.

  7. Liz Says:

    There are several executive actions which deal with security. This link provides the one that was signed on 1/27. IT has not appeared on the WH website yet.


  8. neo-neocon Says:

    Chester Draws:

    9/11 was fifteen years ago, and as I said a lot has changed.

    The seven countries were designated by Obama. This is merely a preliminary and temporary “hold,” pending more study. I would imagine things will be fine-tuned.

    Europe has experienced terrorism from the recent refugees, by the way. This is meant to be preventative.

  9. Susanamantha Says:

    I encourage everyone to read the EO. It is easy to read and understand and seems entirely reasonable, unless you’re a democrat. It is widely available.

  10. Susanamantha Says:

    It is very easy to research the % of world Muslim population in the affected countries. It amounts to approximately 12% (2010 numbers). The vast majority of Muslims world wide are not inconvenienced by Trump’s Executive Order. (Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan and Malaysia make up 62% of the world’s Muslim population. The difference between the 12% and 62% are scattered in every continent.)

  11. OM Says:


    Some (Andy McCarthy as I recall) view the Quuds Force of Iran as a terrorist organization. The bombing of the Israeli’s in Argentina a few years ago is attributed to Iran. But who would count that against them?

  12. charles Says:

    Thanks for the memeorandum link Neo – a site I didn’t know about; but, will add to my list of “Must Read.”

    And, yes, the world has lost its mind. Not only is a dishonest press not good for Trump, in the long run it isn’t good for the US or the world.

    Case in point is a coworker who stayed home after Trump’s election win because being Muslim the whole family thought the government was going to arrest them.

    Which make me wonder if such hard-working, honest, seemingly rational, and very Westernized folks could fall “victim” to such beliefs; how many “home grown” Islamic terrorists are resorting to terror because they are believing the nonsense the media feeds to them? After all, Christians in the immigrants’ countries of origins are killed for being Christian why wouldn’t these folks think the same could happen to them here for being Muslim?

  13. Oldflyer Says:

    Well, nothing is surprising. Not the media, and Progressive reaction; and probably not the fact that Trump did not explain himself. Of course he may have thought, rightly, that no explanation was necessary for reasonable people.

    It does get tedious. As discussed here, all seven countries were on Obama’s “danger” list; he just didn’t act. Also worth noting, Obama admitted a bit over 12,500 refugees from Syria last year. Sixty-eight were Christians; and 24 Yazidis. No need to ask who the most persecuted groups were.

  14. huxley Says:

    During George W. Bush’s years I had gay friends who were sure the day was coming when they would be hauled off to camps.

  15. Griffin Says:


    Rachel Maddow was worrying about that exact thing with Trump a couple of weeks ago. This is the same Trump that attended Elton John’s wedding.

    It’s hard to gauge which is more ridiculous the Trump is coming for the gays crowd or the Trump (with Jewish daughter, son in law and grandkids) is a raging anti-Semite.

    If wasn’t all so tiring it would almost be funny.

  16. Baklava Says:

    One wonders … well I wonder… how long can hyperventilating go on??

    Will people simply pass out from it?

    Or will they see in 52 months that life is actually better?

    I don’t know. We may see many terrorists acts which I hope not and then people will blame Trump as causing them….

  17. n.n Says:

    There was no reversal done, or needed, only a clarification of journolistic sophistry.

    Executive Order 13768

    Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:

    (a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;

    The Order is an enforcement of The Constitution and US Code, and sets a priority to process “removable aliens”, which does not affect compliant permanent residents (e.g. Green Card Holders). It does not target Muslims or any other forms of class diversity. It acknowledges correlation between terrorist activities and specific, limited jurisdictions, and in light of principled alignment a need for greater scrutiny to discern character and risk.

  18. Llwddythlw Says:

    Watching the MSM’s actions I’m reminded of the saying, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.”

  19. CW Says:

    It’s kind rich when the same press that gave Obama a pass on his anti-Israel behavior keep invoking the plight of the Jews when getting hysterical over this temporary ban.

  20. AesopFan Says:

    huxley Says:
    January 29th, 2017 at 8:13 pm
    During George W. Bush’s years I had gay friends who were sure the day was coming when they would be hauled off to camps.
    * * *
    If the Establishment’s collective madness had continued, that day would indeed arrive, brought by the Sharia-law enforcing Muslims their Leftist friends are so intent on importing.

  21. AesopFan Says:

    Hats off to neo, BTW, for an excellent explication of the various strands of punditry on the event.

    There is literally something for everyone on the web tonight: any viewpoint you want to take has someone espousing it.

    Here’s a tidbit from our favorite (ahem) contrarian.


    “The Persuasion Filter says Trump is negotiating with his critics on the extreme right at the same time as he is negotiating with his critics on the left. He needed one “opening offer” that would set up both sides for the next level of persuasion. And he found it. You just saw it.”

  22. Frog Says:

    The objective and dispassionate NYT: ” this bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating policy”
    Thanks for reading this poop, Neo. Though I see no point in your doing so any longer, because it is propaganda, pure and simple. In Yiddish, one would call it Dreck. Maybe even Scheissdreck.
    You don’t like Trump ? Still? You seem OK with his decisions.

  23. Cornhead Says:


    Agree 100% with Scott Adams. Why he isn’t on Fox explaining this is a mystery to me.

  24. neo-neocon Says:


    No, I don’t like Trump. But what does “like” mean in terms of a president? There actually haven’t been all that many presidents I’ve liked, or all that many politicians.

    Trump is a petty liar, and I think an excellent example is the stupid, 9/11-exploiting lie that he lost hundreds of friends on 9/11. Completely untrue, as I analyzed in this post. The horse manure he said about Ted Cruz and many others made it clear he’s a petty, nasty piece of work on the human level. He’s cheated on wives. Etc. .etc. etc.; many things I’ve described in many posts, and no need to repeat them all.

    So no, I don’t like him. I don’t think I ever will, because he is who he is. But that has nothing—literally nothing—to do with my judgment on what he does as president. His actions and policies are what I evaluate. As I’ve said many times, I will judge Trump the president on what he does. Period. On a case by case, policy by policy, act by act, basis.

    That should be clear by now. “Liking” has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

  25. WN Says:

    One thing is for sure, we have learned where the “real” fake news comes from, and just how willing the left is to gulp it down without fact checking!!!!

  26. wendybar Says:

    And there is this….https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

  27. huxley Says:

    I am a bit puzzled how Trump has been behaving sort of OK for a guy whom I consider a straight-up sociopath. He sure looked like a damaged and dangerous person to me.

    However, it’s not that long since his late-night beauty queen tweeting nearly sank his campaign. His Presidency has barely begun.

    Then again, people can change and Trump has many friends, family members and advisors helping him for his own good and the nation’s.

    But if the Mr. Hyde part of this personality re-emerges a few years or a few crises down the road, and Trump starts breaking bad, can anyone who paid attention during the 2016 campaign say they are surprised?

  28. Montage Says:

    A refugee ban in order to improve the vetting process is not a bad idea. But does the vetting process need to be improved? Why exactly does Trump (or anyone) think it is not working? Also the ban is odd in that it leaves out Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and countries that have actually produced terrorists that have attacked America. The handling and roll out of this has not been good. Detaining people in airports is troubling. You mention that people who read the Times are ‘obedient’. Could it also be that some who follow Trump are being obedient? Maybe it’s time to question him just a little bit.

  29. Yancey Ward Says:

    One of the issues some on the Right keep bringing up here is paraphrased this way: “Trump should have better explained this EO, or should have executed it better.”

    This is delusional at best. It didn’t matter how Trump worded or explained this EO. The reaction from the media would have been exactly the same. The reaction would have been exactly the same if the EO hadn’t put a temporary halt to the entry of people from these 7 countries, but had instead just announced the same terms Obama had already put into place.

    This has been a long-running problem for Republicans at all levels of government- thinking they can placate the media by any actions whatsoever.

  30. OM Says:


    No it’s is just expecting and hoping for some basic competence.
    It won’t matter to the media but it will matter to those who aren’t already persuaded by the media’s methods. Why give the media a leg up?

  31. Yancey Ward Says:

    OM, I don’t really think the manner in which it was executed is all that incompetent. Nothing is ever executed perfectly, nothing. You just do the best you can, and when you identify what might be errors, you fix them, but what you don’t do is pay attention to the media because they will be intent on telling Trump the entire EO is a mistake. There are no bargains to be made with the Left here, so why try?

  32. Griffin Says:


    This is my point this and some of the other hysterics of the last ten days are about 85% because it’s a Republican and 15% because it’s Trump. People say ‘well Trump is so boorish’ and all that but they went hysterical over GWB also and he was a lot of things but boorish was not one of them.

    There really is nothing Trump can do to stop the hysterics if he is intent on doing these type things (which I support for the most part). The hope is that things are done and have positive effects and the out of control nutjobs will be proven to be liars and hysterics by the average people.

  33. OM Says:


    Duh, I’m not expecting perfection, zero defects, 6 sigma, no errors. This wasn’t anywhere close. Don’t give the media free points to beat you up with.

  34. neo-neocon Says:

    Yancey Ward:

    Ah, but both things can be true. In other words, he should have explained it better AND it wouldn’t have really mattered to the MSM.

    It would, however, have given their twisting of the story less fertile ground in the public in which to grow. As I wrote in my post:

    What’s more, I am firmly convinced that if, say, a President Cruz had announced something similar (and I believe he would have), and if he’d done it with an exception for people in transit and had also exempted those with green cards, that the press would have managed to give him equally negative coverage. That’s no reason that Trump had to play into their hands…

    You know what would have been a good idea? As this was announced, in addition to this long, complex, and rather legalistic press release, President Trump should have given a much shorter speech highlighting and explaining exactly what the order is and what it isn’t, and why it was being done so quickly. That way at least he would have made the press’s self-appointed job of obfuscation somewhat more difficult, although they would have probably been up to the task anyway.

  35. Frog Says:

    I like a political figure based on his actual policies.
    Obama was a likable figure, but his policies and choice of minions were assuredly not.

    I like Trump’s decisions and choice of minions. that’s what matters, not whether he exaggerated about losing “hundreds” of friends in the WTC or has been a womanizer like JFK or The Lion of the Senate, now deceased. He almost surely lost a bunch of friends in the global financial center’s burn-up.
    Politics is not physics. Politics is imprecise, with wide swings among both exaggerations and minimalizations.

  36. Artfsldgr Says:

    If the dems/communists/socialists/fabians/fascists/progressives didnt break the laws to get people in and into this bad situation, then they would not have suffered an EO that would never have been written…

    its like your kid gave a party while your on vacation, you come home early, and the argument is that they are having so much fun, and all that, and it would be such a shame to send them home…

    duh… they shouldnt have been there in the first place

    and others as well, and those babies and the workers.

    i mean right now, starbucks said it will violate EEOC laws and hire muslim refugees… i guess the blacks get the shaft again even after dems left, they make em squeel

    i guess starbucks thinks americans are as racist as the dems thought when they ginned up the civil war, the riots on nyc, and more…

    i all tapped out but would have bought put options given this one and the almist universal comments of no more starbucks..

    then… i wonder what happens in the african communities when the people they voted for that bribed them with freebies, are now favoring people that displace them from summer jobs, permanent jobs promotions and more!!!!

  37. neo-neocon Says:


    Well, what you say and what I say are not in disagreement. I’m merely separating it out into two different types of “liking.” And I don’t often use the term “like” for political approval.

    With Trump, I approve of (like) quite a few of the things he’s done so far. It’s early in the game.

    And for the most part I don’t “like” him as a person.

  38. Artfsldgr Says:

    What’s more, the country hadn’t yet lost its mind.

    yeah. feminists had not changed the main things yet so that the rest would fall into place.. they had not gotten rid of the male teachers… nor had they changed the language so you cant talk… nor was the world afraid to speak, and to discuss, and to plan… but they changed law and forced themselves into places that didnt want them… the marraige strike and population collapse had not yet happened that importing people was so important to pay for barren oldsters.

    wait… a lot of things we denied are coming up
    including the population collapse of a group who now the minorities want to get rid of: priveleged white feminists who make evil racist men

    so no. we were crazy due to the left in terms of communism and protests of the war so communism would win… but we went deeper crazy with the ladies at the helm…

    dont think so?
    try to criticize them publicly with your name open and see what happens…

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    and they are beyond any criticism…
    if women dont like it, they are not real
    if men dont like it, they have penis, so dont count
    and on and on and on

    the craziness parallels their ascension and social destructiveness.. (work, race, everything is political, abortion, freebies, college freebies and on and on and on… )

    oh and if you dont think it crazy, then why does that feminist leader have a gold screw in her bald head? why do they think walking around in lingerie will stop rape? why is twerking a goodness? is being a sex worker liberating? how about loving fisting as a new norm? how about 32 genders? (and you can read how the replacement of sex with gender in wording was the game that later would turn law on end when gender took full meaning)

    wacko is what the ladies brought
    the more we gave into them, the crazier it got
    and the worse the laws want

    now the ladies are fighting for equal pay

    which they never explain and how its different from equal opportunity and all that? but in the soviet union, a person who was a clerk got the equal pay of a doctor… and so on. its point is so a soviet state could declare wages

    note how these ladies screwed half their own children and future descendants!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  39. Big Maq Says:

    “Agree 100% with Scott Adams. Why he isn’t on Fox explaining this is a mystery to me.” – Cornhead

    dilbert’s base assumption divides the world into two categories: meat puppets (vast majority), and master persuaders (an elite, small percentage of the population).

    Where do you think he’d put you?

    Here is a clue from his most recent post:

    “As a trained persuader, I’m seeing a dangerous situation forming that I assume is invisible to most of you.

    You are faaaar smarter than what adams gives you credit for, but you are free to “Agree 100% with Scott Adams”.

    His branch of NLP is full of sh*t, for the most part, and gets way more credit than he deserves for sometimes having interesting points.

    He only gets airplay because it “aligns” with what people want to hear wrt trump, of course, assuming themselves not to be meat puppets.

    His theoretical foundations may not be more than a step or two away from l ron hubbard’s dianetics, afaiknow.

    Fox, rightly, doesn’t touch his nonsense.

  40. huxley Says:

    FWIW I’m a certified NLP Master Practitioner. Whatever Trump is doing doesn’t look much like what I was taught.

    Nor do Scott Adams’s explanations map well to NLP as I understand it. To be fair Adams mentions NLP as only one ingredient for the stew he calls Master Persuasion.

    The closest brand of persuasion I can see Trump practicing is what the pickup-artist community calls Game, which includes “negging” — seemingly casual insults designed to undermine a woman’s confidence thereby encouraging her to be attracted to the pickup-guy as an alpha male.

    Trump definitely has Game.

  41. Ymarsakar Says:

    Whatever Trump is doing doesn’t look much like what I was taught.

    NLP isn’t based on twitter triggering. If Trum was making a speech, he can reach the audience with hypnotic techniques same way Hussein did.

    What does the triggering in NLP these days is the meme factories and propaganda posters people put up. It’s not old school because original NLP didn’t have these tools.

    To be fair Adams mentions NLP as only one ingredient for the stew he calls Master Persuasion.

    Here’s a list of things they may have picked it up from.

    Lizard Queen of England.
    The Controllers.
    The Rothschilds.
    The Bankers.
    The Vatican.
    The Jesuits.
    The Dominicans.

  42. Bill Says:

    The immigration order is making it hard on people with green cards, regardless. For example, a co-worker who already spent tons of money to get tickets for a trip back to India next week. Immigration officer advised he cancel the trip.

    May seem like a small price to pay – but I agree with the sentiment upthread – what was wrong with current refugee vetting processes? Honest question.

    The order was delivered in such a rush that even guys like my friend from India who have been vetted out the wazoo (green card holder) are effected, largely out of just confusion and caution – And we really, really need our green card co-workers (I’m in IT).

    We’re twelve days in. Happy with the Supreme Court pick. Not happy with rule-by-EO and wondering if the president will just do that the rest of his term or actually work the process of Government the way they are supposed to be worked?

  43. LindaF Says:

    I did some checking on the family whose daughter was distraught over missing being with her mother while she was hospital. One of the nieces, who’d been sent to pick up the woman at the airport has been supporting a terrorist bunch on her Facebook page. Not necessarily indicative of the rest of the family, but certainly needing more investigation before swallowing the story whole.

    The woman CLAIMS to be a preschool teacher – I’d like more information about the school – is it a Madrassa? Is she actually working as a teacher, or was that detail added to get the Lefties’ heartstrings all a-twitter?

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge