this was not a national security executive order, it was an executive order that was designed to play to president trump s base by targeting muslims because they re muslims. and if there s one thing you can t do under our constitution, and the establishment clause, is you can t single out particular religions with a broad brush and disfavor them just because they re a particular religion. david, what about the concern about future attacks? obviously i know that these seven countries, you know, trump talks about the fact that the obama administration is paying close attention to the seven countries. is there a concern, or any, i guess, thread of validity to you in this argument? well, look, there s always a concern about terrorist attacks, and national security. and we have in place procedures that ensure that the people who come in are cleared, because we determined that are you seeing the vetting process? people are saying the vetting process isn t good enough and we re essent
in private there s one question you may be right. there s one question to be asked. do we want a democracy or do we not? and if we want a democracy yes, we do. then we cannot have absolutes. it s like the secret service protection of the president. if you ask the secret service, they would prefer the president never leave a building and it would be windowless. the reality is the president has to move about. democracy has to be fluid and has to be open. particularly our democracy that was created by immigrants, many of whom were radicalized particularly during the french revolution. to suddenly say we re going to have extreme vetting and we re going to leave off the definition of that extreme vetting to bureaucrats in washington is very, very dangerous to me. particularly as a patriot. go ahead, noelle. the conversation took a turn. but it s a good discussion. what would you prefer? would you prefer just soft
emotions in politics. john kennedy got elected on a missile gap to a large extent. is there a danger, though, noelle, or peter? either one of you can weigh in on this. we can look at american history and know that because a lot of people think something doesn t make it ethical or moral. true. it s a slippery slope, noelle? it is a slippery slope. look, my background is middle eastern. it s kind of a i m walking a thin line. i ve got family, you know. but you ve got to look at exactly what he s wanting to do. and i think it s convenient for the left, and some people that are disagreeing within his own party on the right to take this and say that he s wanting to ban all muslims, it s all chaos. what he wants to do is have extreme vetting. and i think all he wanted to do is just hold it up for a certain period of time so he could get a good system in place. maybe they should be working
what we want is extreme vetting. we really want to look at what s going on here. it s not persecuting all muslims, but you ve got to admit what s going on with terrorism is religious based. it is based on religion. i m sure i m going to catch a lot of stuff on twitter after saying this. go ahead, peter. can i interrupt? this is not even an alternative fact. it s just ignorance of history. to talk about that it s done in the name of a religion, or that we re not going to persecute all muslims is the fear driving this country out of a democracy and into some sort of fake and false sense of security. i mean, in 2010, when i wrote a piece about fear in america that was sleeping through town hall meetings, about 78% of americans stressed to the government. that s now down to about 8%. in various polls.
vetting, open borders, come one, come all, and we don t want to offend anyone, so just go ahead and come in, and fill out a form and answer what do you do? go ahead, peter. first of all, i want definitions of noelle means by hard vetting, soft vetting. but i want a country that s based not just in theory, but in practice on the constitution and the bill of rights. everybody does. right now the arguments of the ninth circuit has decided that that executive order did not fit with the constitutional requirements. there may be adaptations down the road, but for right now, the original intent and action that the president took was viewed as non-adherence to the constitution. noel ing, 15 seconds. we have to wrap it up. this is an interesting discussion. go ahead, noelle. i think judge robart came from a sincere, from a place