WWTBAM Bored

Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father who offered Donny a copy of the Constitution at the Democratic National Convention, abruptly cancelled a talk he was scheduled to give tomorrow in Toronto. Mr. Khan was told that his "traveling privileges were under review." Mr. Khan is an American citizen.

If this is correct, it seems like a clear attempt to use the power of the federal government to intimidate a dissenter in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights, and demands a forceful response from all of us who still value the freedoms Mr. Khan's son gave his life to protect. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father who offered Donny a copy of the Constitution at the Democratic National Convention, abruptly cancelled a talk he was scheduled to give tomorrow in Toronto. Mr. Khan was told that his "traveling privileges were under review." Mr. Khan is an American citizen.

If this is correct, it seems like a clear attempt to use the power of the federal government to intimidate a dissenter in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights, and demands a forceful response from all of us who still value the freedoms Mr. Khan's son gave his life to protect. --Bob

Do you know that his privileges are under review? Or just taking his word? Who told him? And why are they, if they are? Also, how many other citizens' privileges are under review? Is he a specific target or just caught in a wide net?

This hasn't been confirmed, in fact, Politico state dept sources and Cust and Border sources in several sites state that nobody "reviews travel privileges" prior to a trip. You should brake your frothing temporarily.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father who offered Donny a copy of the Constitution at the Democratic National Convention, abruptly cancelled a talk he was scheduled to give tomorrow in Toronto. Mr. Khan was told that his "traveling privileges were under review." Mr. Khan is an American citizen.

If this is correct, it seems like a clear attempt to use the power of the federal government to intimidate a dissenter in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights, and demands a forceful response from all of us who still value the freedoms Mr. Khan's son gave his life to protect. --Bob

Do you know that his privileges are under review? Or just taking his word? Who told him? And why are they, if they are? Also, how many other citizens' privileges are under review? Is he a specific target or just caught in a wide net?

"If this is correct" was a pretty clear signal that I am not certain exactly what Mr. Khan was told. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:"If this is correct" was a pretty clear signal that I am not certain exactly what Mr. Khan was told. --Bob

Yeah, well I read somewhere Michelle Obama had a penis. But I didn't start a "May" or "Might" thread. I just didn't start one.

Bob78164 wrote:Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father who offered Donny a copy of the Constitution at the Democratic National Convention, abruptly cancelled a talk he was scheduled to give tomorrow in Toronto. Mr. Khan was told that his "traveling privileges were under review." Mr. Khan is an American citizen.

If this is correct, it seems like a clear attempt to use the power of the federal government to intimidate a dissenter in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights, and demands a forceful response from all of us who still value the freedoms Mr. Khan's son gave his life to protect. --Bob

<sarcafont> It's always so much better to use violence and rioting to intimidate people in retaliation for their exercise of First Amendment rights. </sarcafont>

Chill Watch Day 3, nope nothing

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Chill Watch Day 3, nope nothing

Climate change

Beebs52 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Chill Watch Day 3, nope nothing

Climate change

*snort

BackInTex wrote:Its starting to warm up a bit.

All it took was one jackass making an extralegal statement. I'm glad there's no official ban.

I am waiting for an update about the naturalized Canadian of Middle Eastern ancestry being told she couldn't visit the U.S. without a visa.

Finally, in a Friday afternoon email to this reporter, Khan explains: "I did not want to go through the hassle of uncertain rules and capricious implementation."

Khan also expressed his concern about Muslim profiling with the local bar association.

"Seeing things like Muhammed Ali Jr. being detained. Muslim but American citizens being detained at the border."

This IS chilling

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/20/ma ... gally.html

flockofseagulls104 wrote:This IS chilling

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/20/ma ... gally.html

So, I guess that the rape of a 14-year-old girl only gets your attention if the rapists are illegal immigrants.

I noticed you didn't post this recent story:

http://www.wafb.com/story/34682250/fugi ... tuting-her

or this one:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... less-camp/

or this one:

http://fox13now.com/2017/03/11/las-vega ... n-student/

or this one:

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/20170 ... ping-girls


None of these other stories got traction because they don't fit into the right wing agenda. This girl is a victim and she deserves sympathy and compassion, not just being transformed into a political talking point.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:This IS chilling

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/20/ma ... gally.html

So, I guess that the rape of a 14-year-old girl only gets your attention if the rapists are illegal immigrants.

I noticed you didn't post this recent story:

http://www.wafb.com/story/34682250/fugi ... tuting-her

or this one:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... less-camp/

or this one:

http://fox13now.com/2017/03/11/las-vega ... n-student/

or this one:

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/20170 ... ping-girls


None of these other stories got traction because they don't fit into the right wing agenda. This girl is a victim and she deserves sympathy and compassion, not just being transformed into a political talking point.

From a policy perspective, there is a major difference between a domestic and an imported perp.

We really can't do anything about a domestic perpetrator committing his first crime. We can do something about his 2nd/3rd crime etc by jailing them after the 1st crime. However, I submit that your side of the aisle tends to go easy on the early crimes of a perp thus he would be free to commit his later, often more serious crimes. However, that is an issue for another day.

However, we don't have to import the criminals/underclass of other nations. A rational immigration policy would do everything possible to keep them out in the first place and would kick them back out at the slightest infraction.

Spock wrote: However, we don't have to import the criminals/underclass of other nations.

You're conflating two different types of people here.

For four centuries we've been importing the underclass of other nations. The nation has turned out pretty well as a result.

Spock wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:This IS chilling

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/20/ma ... gally.html

So, I guess that the rape of a 14-year-old girl only gets your attention if the rapists are illegal immigrants.

I noticed you didn't post this recent story:

http://www.wafb.com/story/34682250/fugi ... tuting-her

or this one:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... less-camp/

or this one:

http://fox13now.com/2017/03/11/las-vega ... n-student/

or this one:

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/20170 ... ping-girls


None of these other stories got traction because they don't fit into the right wing agenda. This girl is a victim and she deserves sympathy and compassion, not just being transformed into a political talking point.

From a policy perspective, there is a major difference between a domestic and an imported perp.

We really can't do anything about a domestic perpetrator committing his first crime. We can do something about his 2nd/3rd crime etc by jailing them after the 1st crime. However, I submit that your side of the aisle tends to go easy on the early crimes of a perp thus he would be free to commit his later, often more serious crimes. However, that is an issue for another day.

However, we don't have to import the criminals/underclass of other nations. A rational immigration policy would do everything possible to keep them out in the first place and would kick them back out at the slightest infraction.

My understanding is that, as a class, immigrants commit fewer crimes than non-immigrants.

A rational immigration policy would kick people out when we have evidence that the country is better off without them than with them. That's not the same as kicking out anyone who commits even the slightest infraction. Does that include traffic tickets, for instance?

And looking at crimes is only one side of the scale. If we're going to judge them, we should also weigh the harm of their crimes against the good these people do. From this perspective, throwing out a non-violent and non-recidivist former offender, at the cost of stripping American citizens of their parents, is something we should think about much more carefully than this Administration appears willing, or able, to do. --Bob