not dealing with the reality of the situation. france and belgium? let me finish. you look at these terrorists and where they are actually now. it is very clear for example syria, that there have been terrorists from multiple nations that have gone into there and trained under isis and that has been a safe haven. you look at the countries on the list and there is a hot bed right now, most of them don t even have central functioning governments. so how do you even check individuals coming from that country if you can t even check with a central government that is nonexistent? the second issue is, when you say it s a muslim ban, that s fear mongering. that is not a muslim ban when a billion a billion muslims from around the world can come to america, no problem from any
there if uae was on there? you would be as critical. of course not. this is a counter productive ban. it s ineffective. there s a reason why experts have said this would be useless. this will be a thoroughly ineffective counter productive ban which will not help our national security. he says go after cyber threats. go after individuals who get radicalized and you know something about this because he said this will be counter productive and ineffective. let s get ben back in. one simple thing here. this is a huge reason why donald trump is the president of the united states and hillary clinton is not. because americans understood that there s an actual threat from terrorism and as he just implied there that oh, all these terrorists came, you know, weren t from asaudi arabia, wha countries did they train? are you fine with europe. let him finish. let him finish.
with the administration i think the thing that a lot of americans are a lot of trump s opponents are very unwilling to face up to is that that id logical problem comes out of american democracy which is that trump has kind of a mandate to do things like reform immigration policy. however, he s not very good at articulating it. he s in fact, he s so poor at articulating to the american public that one suspects that he either can t or he simply doesn t want to. bannon is a much more has a much more systematic way of going about describing these things. at least if you can judge from his radio shows and his writings. so he might be a much better way to decipher what the what the administration really wants. do you think that the president and steve bannon would be better served because he is so articulate for his thought
thank you for calling it what it is. it s a muslim ban and i appreciate steven miller who cowrote the ban for his incompetence and honesty when he said it s not going to be that much different from the muslim ban that was narrowly focused and wasn t talking about the constitutionality of the ban but to remind president trump that there is something called checks and balances. he s not going to placate the constitution, ro or the immigration act that makes it and thank god for rudy julian. when it came to the intention behind this ban which is the muslim ban and the fact that it
manipulator. that s enough fun for tonight. because he doesn t speak out he leaves high profile attacks like this unanswered. it s a stunning thing that a white sue premist would be a member of the national security council. he doesn t care what people think of him. and joining me now the senior editor of the standard. i m going to ask you about the piece on steve bannon but i mentioned that bannon generally doesn t care what people think of him so why do you think he appeared at cpac this past week? well, i suppose he s reaching out to people he thought of as as the hard line of the of the republican party. the people receptive to the old brietbart message. the people who thought that part of the problem with american