“A Very, Very Strict Ban.”

A crowd welcomes passengers as they exit customs at Dulles International Airport in Virginia. CREDIT: Jack Jenkins/ThinkProgress.

A crowd welcomes passengers as they exit customs at Dulles International Airport in Virginia. CREDIT: Jack Jenkins/ThinkProgress.

Our dictator ordered a ban, called it a ban. The ban was on Muslims, every country except those the dictator does business in, which was terribly convenient. People have been upset, and rightly so, there were many protests, still are, over the chaos and cruelty being inflicted on people. The thin-skinned tyrant now has his little cadre of hench people trying to spin it, in an attempt to expunge the word ban in favour of “extreme vetting”. Someone should point out that the switch doesn’t make the ban sound any less of a ban, or in any way, better. Use of the word extreme isn’t going to help. We already know that Trump is extremely unstable, and this latest round of idiocy and alternative facts is accomplishing nothing outside of emphasising the lies, bullshit and instability.

During his Tuesday press availability, Trump administration Press Secretary Sean Spicer insisted that the travel ban implemented by President Trump via executive order last Friday isn’t actually a ban at all.

“It can’t be a ban if you’re letting a million people in,” Spicer said, referring to the fact that Muslims who don’t hail from the seven Muslim-majority countries included in the ban can still travel to the U.S. “If 325,000 people from another country can come in, that is by nature not a ban… that is extreme vetting.”

Emphasis mine. This is open pandering to willful idiots, bigots, and nazis everywhere. And all the willful idiots, bigots, and nazis are swallowing this massive lie whole.

Spicer’s explanation prompted reporters to refer back a tweet posted by Trump on Monday morning in which he referred to his travel ban as a “ban.” Trump also referred to it as “a very, very strict ban” on Saturday.

In fact, in a White House press release distributed Sunday, Spicer himself referred to the ban as “a 90-day ban.”

But during Tuesday’s press availability, Spicer insisted that any confusion over whether or not Trump’s executive order constitutes a ban is the media’s fault.

“He’s using the words the media is using,” Spicer said of Trump’s tweet. “I think the words that are being used to describe it derive from what the media is calling this. [Trump] has been very clear that it is extreme vetting.”

Ah yes, it’s the media’s fault, natch. Thing is, no one in media could have reported on this at all until the Dictator and his gleeful goons implemented the ban, taking everyone, including half of those in government, by surprise. It was the implementation of a ban. It was called a ban. In action, it’s a ban. The executive order: ban. Ban, ban, ban, ban, ban. This is not the fault of media, it’s the result of a faulty brain and ginormous ego.

Likewise, because non-Muslims from the seven countries included in Trump’s travel ban are banned from entering the U.S. and because Muslims from other countries can still enter the country, Spicer and Trump supporters argue that Trump’s action doesn’t represent a “ban.”

The actual facts are as plain as the nose on your face, but those supporting Trump have not only swallowed this, they believe it, and are pushing this fancy all over the place. “It’s temporary, not a ban!” “It’s just vetting, to keep us safe!” and so on. These people are proud to be xenophobic assholes.

But Trump has been clear about his intentions all along. His December 2015 statement “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” is still on his website. And during a Fox News appearance on Saturday, Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani said that Trump’s executive order stemmed from a desire to ban Muslims, but to do so with the veneer of legality.

“So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally,’” Giuliani said. “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

But Giuliani’s comment about “areas of the world that create danger” being the basis for the ban is belied by the facts. As the Wall Street Journal reports, of the 161 people charged with jihadist terrorism-related crimes or who died before being charged since 2001, only 11 were identified as being from the seven countries included in Trump’s executive order — Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia.

The veneer of legality. Yeah. A spray on veneer, like a choking cloud of Aquanet. All this to catch nothing. There are terrorists here, but they aren’t at any airport. We have plenty of homegrown terrorists, and there’s a sadistic terrorist sitting in the highest office of the land.

Via Think Progress. This morning, I watched the advert Budweiser is going to air over the Superbowl (American Football), and if you think you need some insight into how Trumpoids think, along with their terrifying inability to think, head over and skim the comments.



  1. rq says

    Alternative facts! Extreme vetting! Black is white!
    So basically he said that Trump is easily swayed by what he reads (or sees or hears) in the media. Humm…

  2. Ice Swimmer says

    “Areas of the world that create danger.” I think there are a few addresses that create a lot of danger and problems:

    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC and
    721–725 Fifth Avenue, NYC, NY.

  3. johnson catman says

    I already knew what the comments would contain, but I peeked at a few. Just what I expected.

    I do not drink Budweiser when I drink beer, but I am glad that they are attempting to make a statement about immigrants (though they are doing it in the least “offensive” way that they can-with a white guy). I think that businesses voicing opposition to the order might have more of an effect than all the individual voices put together.

  4. voyager says

    I shouldn’t have read those comments so early in the day. Now I feel sick.
    In today’s Montreal Gazette the xenophobic, Islamophobic premier of Quebec publicly stated that it’s time to dial back the rhetoric of hate. “These demons are xenophobia, racism, exclusion. They are present here. We need to recognize that and act together to show the direction we want our society to evolve. Words can hurt. Words can be knives slashing at peoples consciousness.”
    It’s too little, too late, but generally most Canadians feel the same way. I can’t imagine living where you are.
    Also, would it be OK to use your idea of protest pants. I have a few protests in my future.

  5. says


    Also, would it be OK to use your idea of protest pants. I have a few protests in my future.

    Yes, of course! I’d like to see that spread, as far as people want to take it. I garnered a number of filthy looks yesterday, but was buoyed by getting many more sly smiles. My pain person (in charge of my meds) at the pain clinic was delighted -- she bent over to read the front, and made me stand up to see the back, and said “fuck nazis!” and broke out into laughter. She also called them “so cute”.

  6. blf says

    The ban was on Muslims, every country except…

    Apologies for being pedantic, but no, not every Muslim-majority country excepting blah blah blah. For example (2010 figures), Indonesia (87%), Pakistan (96%), Bangladesh (90%), and others (such as Malaysia (61%), Niger (98%), and so on). Hair furor does have business interests in Indonesia; not sure about Pakistan or Bangladesh (and I haven’t attempted to check any others).

    “Countries mostly in the middle east”, which I admit is a mouthful, is perhaps better than “every country”.

  7. embraceyourinnercrone says

    blf @6 But they are not even following their own list of countries:

    16 year old Jordanian boy being held indefinitely:


    He flew to Jordan to renew his visa. Flew back and is still being held in a refugee facility in Chicago(except he is not a refugee, he goes to school in Texas and lives with his brother)

    “Mohammad and Rami’s attorney, Ali Zakaria, said he is filing a family reunification document with the shelter so the Office of Refugee Resettlement can release him to his brother’s custody in Texas. He said he has not yet heard back from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement about why Mohammad was detained or how long his detention could last.
    Zakaria estimated Mohammad could be in custody anywhere from two weeks to two months. He did not know Mohammad’s visa status or which type of visa Mohammad tried to renew in Jordan.”

  8. voyager says

    Thank you Caine. I may even try my hand at a protest jacket. People often look at my chest before they look at me. Good place to put fuck you signage.

  9. blf says

    embraceyourinnercrone@7, Ok, change “The ban is on countries mostly in the middle east…” to “The dalekocracy’s EO (Exterminate! Order) says the ban applies to seven countries mostly in the middle east…”. Thank you for highlighting that oversight. My bad.

  10. says


    I may even try my hand at a protest jacket. People often look at my chest before they look at me. Good place to put fuck you signage.

    Yes. If I’d had a light coloured T-shirt, I would have done that. Chest and arse are probably the best places for such things, because you know they’re gonna look, so might as well give them something to see.

Leave a Reply