Same here. Was planning to spend some time with my cousins in California this year, but maybe gonna sit it out as well.

Also, as much as I do not like my President, at least he's a 30-year public servant with a penchant for killing criminals. And he's not Trump. :)

Speaking as an immigrant who travels outside of the US regularly I think its bloody awful - in a nutshell if I'd been born in the wrong country I'd now find myself stranded outside of the US for a minimum of 3 months.

For me that would have meant separation from my kids and also potentially that my pets would be left unattended ... I'm certain that these are real situation for some people this morning.

PS - I have an Iranian friend who is a Phd student here and is worried he now won't get to finish his studies ... he's more 'Americanised' than most Americans I know, he drinks me under the table and is a pretty good Poker player ... surely its better for the US to have people with a favorable opinion of the US promote it as a nice place than to continue an 'us and them' approach which encourages radicalisation?

I think the liberal side is being really stupid here. That's rather disheartening since what this country needs is a principled opposition to Trump.


This kind of thing here(note: I'm not calling you stupid -- I'm calling this kind of reporting stupid). Where are these nations in the executive order? Hint: it's not Trump's list. The list is this:


This is part of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The countries are, in simple terms, those identified as terrorist-sponsoring nations by the Secretary of State. The only nation singled out by Trump in this order is Syria. The current nations on the list are the product of how the Obama administration assessed the situation vis a vis terrorism. Ergo, it's a list that has nothing to with Islam per se and nothing to do with Trump's business interests. And people wonder why the media are perceived as having a liberal bias.

But what we get is breathless 'these are muslim-majority countries', 'the sky is falling', 'the Constitution is being shredded', 'Muslim ban', etc. All this does is pander to the ill-informed and give ammunition to alt-right about the media being an 'opposition party', corrupt, etc. Because apparently the headline 'Trump bans immigration from seven nations identified as terrorist sponsors' isn't sensational enough. And so the media is an active accomplice in fracturing relations between divided religious groups(here and around the world) further.

As I've said, I've very much against Trump and wouldn't have supported him for dog-catcher, but this is not a Muslim ban. The truth matters, and I think people seriously need to get a grip here. Caveat: the issues with those already here etc. are a problem but this really shouldn't affect them. If Trump allows it to, most definitely he gets both barrels for that. I'm also in general against restricting immigration, but I think we can make that argument without engaging in this kind of ... well, 'alternative facts'. Nobody is going to beat Trump by sinking to his level(aside from how repulsive and wrong that is to begin with).

Emirates Airline had to change pilot and crew rosters to fly into the US. That's how stupid this is.

The way I read it that's for the 6 other countries & Syrian refugees are singled out in Section 5cI agree that was Trump's intention, but the actual wording is contradictory, incredibly confusing, and kind of a clusterfuck.
That act re-distributed where immigrants came from and abolished the requirement that their race composition match the existing US population, but still had national quotas which are a form of discrimination by nation at an individual level. Jimmy Carter banned Iranian nationals in 1980, Obama stopped the Iraqi refugee program for 6 months in 2011. Refugees in particular seem even moreso up to the discretion of the President (or possibly Congress?) and are heavily contingent on what nation someone is from. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think defining what nation states we'll accept refugees from is something either well defined or anything the courts are interested in adjudicating. (Returning green card holders, dual nationals, people detained on US soil after being promised entry I'm all for them getting involved in. And a challenge on the Christian part of this is certainly forthcoming & will be interesting to follow - I don't like the way this law did it, but there are countries and times where specific religions are the basis for persecution.)

The Times of London is reporting that Trump held hands with PM May because he has a phobia concerning stairs and slopes.

WTF?

I wonder where we'd go from here if there was actually another terrorist attack. Which of course, isn't any less likely considering none of the people of nationalities who have actually committed terrorist attacks in the U.S. are impacted by this order.

Here's the transcript for Giuliani's remarks about making the Muslim ban "legal," from 3 minute mark in this video: https://t.co/xgW0rYIy6Z pic.twitter.com/NCfWX62KD2

— Kashmir Hill (@kashhill) January 29, 2017

That Facebook page isn't working.

Here's the YouTube link to the video.

When Dick Cheney thinks you've gone overboard in the name of national security, it makes you think. Or maybe he's just another liberal confused by alternative facts.

The good news is the March for Life people are with us on this.... No?

Okay, at least we have the "All Lives Matter!" people... No?

I guess I don't know what words mean anymore.

Many people are saying that Cheney is a RINO.

Are you saying the March for Life people aren't against this ban? Everyone I know who went is against this.

judicial branch wouldn't look it over. The DOJ has an office that should have done so, but they were not consulted.

I'd swallow the 'terrorist sponsoring nations' a little more easily if the list actually included nations which had terrorists who had committed atrocities in the US included in it ... y'know Saudi etc.

You might also want to listen to the Guilliani interview where he specifically says Trump asked for a Muslim ban and for him to work out a way to make it legal ...

So, is this EO a mess because rather than creating, researching and vetting a sensible (and probably nearly identical) EO, trump did this purely for political sensationalism- an emotional patriotic boost for his supporters?

100% Pro-Life here. (And if you recruit and pay someone to murder your wife, of COURSE you will be charged with a crime. Trump got *that* one dead right, but he's a politician just like the rest of them, just a little less...political.)
100% against this action.

Ok, but the Trump administration hasn't changed this list(yet), so your argument there isn't with him. The list, FWIW, is about international terrorism in general, not specifically anti-US terrorism. If it's a bad list, it's a bad list, but that doesn't make it Trump's list. He could have listed 18 random nations he doesn't personally like, or specified 'any nation with a majority Muslim population', etc. Quite possibly he would even have liked to. But he didn't.


I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have, but I don't trust Trump at all. Let's assume everything Giuliani said is right. That does not change facts:

** The current list was made by the SoS under the Obama administration(not blaming him for the EO of course, that's all Trump's doing, just saying that they found these nations to be terrorist sponsors for better or worse)

** This simply is not, by definition a Muslim ban. There are lots of muslim nations not on it. The order does not specify 'no muslims get in'.

I think Trump has an obvious and well-documented desire to discriminate against Muslims. This, again, does not change the facts of where this list came from or what the order actually says. To me the issue here is irresponsible, incompetent reporting by the media(the source of the list is one of the most relevant facts here, and is being almost completely ignored) and the counterfactual hysteria following on. That distracts attention from the more important issue about what immigration policy should be.

There's only three countries currently on the SOS "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list. And the White House has said this is likely just a first step towards establishing a broader ban.

It's Trump's list. And using "bad governments" as the only threshold makes zero sense in the first place. The travel ban isn't on government officials. It's on everyone, including those fleeing these governments that are - wait for it - bad and dangerous governments. That's the point. Travel bans intended to make the country safer should at least have some connection to the threat. If we're going to target countries, or types of people (and we should, to an extent, and we always have), why not at least target those which have produced terrorists that have attacked the U.S.? Why ban athletes and airline pilots and doctors and green card holders and people who have worked intelligence for the U.S. military and passed all those clearances?

Pretty sure that is what he was getting at. Sarcasm doesn't always come through in a chat forum.

As far as the list goes, if it's a list of general terrorism and not US specific terrorism, then why is it being used to ban people coming into the US? This is Trump's deal no matter what the origin of the list is. The reporting on it has been accurate.

Educate me on this then. Maybe my facts are wrong. I've seen the full executive order. Syria is the only nation mentioned by name. Everyone's talking about 7 nations. Where are they getting the others from? Otherwhise at most it's 1 + 3 = 4, not 7.

Is everybody just making up the same seven nations? Is DHS just blocking nations not identified in the executive order? What's the missing piece here? Is it a mere coincidence that it is the exact same seven listed in the 2015 visa bill that Obama signed?


I don't understand how a thinking human being can reach this conclusion. The headlines and main thrust about the nations from literally every mainstream and almost all non-mainstream articles I've seen has repeated the phrase 'majority muslim' as the reason these countries were selected. No references whatsoever to the legislative sources I've mentioned. That's as far from accurate as it is possible to get, aside from getting the nations themselves wrong.

I'm sure there's some list in some government policy document identifying those 7 countries, but why was Trump requires to use that list as opposed to some other list or process connected to actual terrorism threats? You talking like his hands were tied on this.

Didn't the order give an exception to Christians and other minority religions? How is it not a Muslim ban. Trump said the whole campaign he wanted one

Really? It's a list of countries that is predominately Muslim. One of his trusted advisers says it's a list to ban Muslims. Trump himself campaigned unapologetically that he wants to ban Muslims.

It's not a global ban but the intentions of it are fairly clear.

Multiple admin officials made it clear today that Jews were not accidentally left out of the Holocaust Remembrance Day statement, but were intentionally left out because lots of people suffered. That's only one step away from full on Holocaust denial and a favorite line of argument for anti-semites.

The problem with us vs. them politics is that them eventually becomes us.

And Flynn's son and former top advisor has called it a Muslim ban.

No, its people of all faiths from the countries in questions. Some of the individual stories picked up are about Christian families who have been prevented from travelling.

Again, it's the same list that Obama used in 2015 for his visa bill. Was that anti-Muslim? More importantly, did the media treat it that way?(answer obvious)

I'm with you 100% on what he said during the campaign and what he'd probably like to do(I say probably because he lies so much, you can never really know what he thinks). The Holocaust stuff JPhillips just mentioned is disgusting beyond words. None of that changes the facts though. The problem here is the whole idea of 'we know what he really means/wants, so we'll just pretend this is that and attack it as such'. Again, all that does is give him and his supporters ammunition, aside from being fundamentally the wrong thing to do.

.02

No, I'm objecting to the dominant narrative that the only possible reason he chose these countries is that they are majority Muslim and that he picked them out of thin air, devoid of context. His hands weren't tied, he could have done whatever he wanted to, picked any countries he felt like. In fact, I made that point earlier:

Trump called Giuliani to help him draft a muslim ban. He chose a list of predominately Muslim countries that just happened to not include places where he does business. He campaigned on banning muslims. Try to spin it however you want, but it was clearly targeted at keeping muslims out of the US.

Calling it Obama's visa bill is way too much of an overstatement. It was introduced by the Republican and included in the budget compromise. It was signed by Obama as part of that compromise, but he never publicly advocated for it.

It was also pretty narrow in scope. All it did was remove the waiver for visas. People could still travel freely, but they had to get visas even for stays under 90 days.

I'd like to know more about the history of the proposal, but right now it looks like a GOP proposal that was bargained into the budget bill and signed because it didn't do anything more than delay some travel.

He didn't say probably. He advertised it on his site.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

I don't really know how the Visa waiver bill correlates to this. It just meant you didn't get the waiver that is given to people travelling from stable allies like the UK and Canada. You had to fill out the proper paperwork. It didn't ban you in any way.

It's relevant in terms of the countries that were chosen. They were chosen for a reason.


Very true. The relevant point I was making though was about what countries are on the list. Some of the countries it applies to can change, because it's based on various lists the government puts together for security reasons. The point is not what consequences the bill imposed, but what chosen were picked and why.

What part of me repeatedly stating I'm against the policy and strongly anti-Trump makes you think I'm trying to spin it?

I think its more trying to understand why you think Trump was forced to pick these particular countries because of their use in an arbitrary previous piece of legislation ... that rationalization rather than accepting what Trump himself and some of his administration have indicated (ie. that he's targeting Muslims).

Not a surprise. His campaign teetered on the anti-semitic edge. His most ardent supporters aren't exactly big fans of the Jews.

I don't think that, I've said so twice now ... I guess I just think I've run out of useful things to say here.

You said it was "Obama's list", and somehow not "Trump's list", ignoring the context of prior usages of the list being different than this week's, and ignoring the fact that Trump wasn't bound to use that particular list, or even bound to ban travel based on actions of governments.

How is it not "Trump's list" when it's an executive order? This is the most bewildering point I've maybe ever seen here. I'm sure even Trump would tell you that this is a Trump order and a Trump idea, and an execution of Trump policy, down to the last letter. Even Trump wouldn't try to do the tap-dance you're doing here, I think he'd own the entire order and all the impacts it has. I think he'd like to go further, and certainly the people around him would, but it's a first step based on some already-existing list of countries, so his defenders can pretend for a little while that is really no different than what Obama did. Giuliani was proudly declaring on TV that the intent here was to ban Muslims, and this was just the mechanism they though they could get through the courts right now.

Yes, but many hardcore, hawkish, national security anti-Muslim types are big admirers of Israel and how they conduct national security. The fact that the Trump administration is more hardcore than even those people is pretty scary.

I get what you're trying to say Brian. I think it's a relevant point when multiple people are saying Trump picked Muslim nations and left out the ones he had business interests in. Was pretty curious why those specific countries were on the list.

Well, at least he didn't remove the Director of National Intelligence and Joint Chiefs of Staff from security meetings so he could appoint a racist wife-beater.

I'm honestly worried the US will fall into a dictatorship within the next two years. I thought maybe Michael Flynn would be a man of morals given his service, but that he would allow this to happen without a peep speaks volumes.

This Bannon-Trump marriage has the feeling of that time Putin got his dentist "elected."

Mike Flynn? He might still be very competent in a narrow job, but he went off the deep end awhile ago on broader topics like Giuliani. Mattis & John Kelly are the two national security appointees I still trust until proven otherwise.

I'm definitely aware that your are not one of the people I'm referring to in my post. I know you did not support Trump and do not support this ban.


What I'm saying is there is a significant overlap between people who are pro-life, anti-BLM (and shout "All Lives Matter), and who also support this ban. My post was mocking/attacking those people and not the many people who oppose the EO.

Ok...he's lashing out against the McCain/Graham joint statement. Standard Trump fare. But....

The joint statement of former presidential candidates John McCain & Lindsey Graham is wrong - they are sadly weak on immigration. The two...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

...Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

...how are they "always looking to start World War III?" What does that even mean?

I don't think it would ever get that crazy but Bannon is a creepy dude. Read up on his talks about wanting to "destroy the state" and being a Leninist. He does believe in turning the country into a one-party Authoritarian state. Not sure the public would get behind that.

I think he meant it figuratively, as in when you argue with something someone said and they get irritated - "Let's not make it World War 3". He's frustrated that they always get on his case about something he did or said. It would've been funnier if he said, "Let's not make a federal case out of it."

A lot of people(Russian bots?) on the alt-right hate McCain and Graham and do see them as literal warmongers.

Ahhhhh..ok. I can buy that explanation. And I've probably used that metaphor or a similar one in conversation myself. But when you and the people you are talking about could actually have, you know, major influence in *actually* starting World War III, it's kind of an odd one to use. ;)

I haven't seen that overlap myself. It may just be the circles I'm in, but every major Christian leader and pro-life advocate I'm aware of has lined up to oppose this ban.

Here's a decent article from Slate about the evangelical backlash both back in 12/15 and now towards Trump on the muslim ban issue.

A considerable amount of 'evangelicals'(word doesn't really mean anything anymore, but in general this community will know what I mean) 'came home' to Trump over the last six weeks of the campaign. Without that he wouldn't be president. The majority of the ones I know personally support the ban, though there is a not-small minority strongly, passionately against it. Suffice to say I've lost a lot of respect, probably permanently, for many in my personal 'circle'. Hasn't gotten to the point of bitterness, but at times it's been close.

You'd be shocked (maybe not) how many Catholics are pro life, pro ban, anti BLM.

Last week our Priest was pretty much sub-tweeting Obama. Talking about how Christians should ignore the educated and listen to those who are meek and like them.

This week was the beatitudes (blessed are the meek, poor in spirit...). Thought maybe he might tie it into the refugees, about sharing a Christian spirit... nothing.

And Sean Spicer retweets the Onion. Lmao! This after posting, what is likely, his password twice in the past week.

What a train wreck.

I haven't met one Evangelical in Alabama yet that supports this ban, or the way it was done.

Reminder that Stephen Miller who is a Senior Adviser to the President was mentored by this guy.

This headline made me LOL

White House backs Trump's decision to include strategist Bannon at national security meetings | Fox News

Our church, big in community outreach, is against it. My parents church, a pretty staunch conservative church (no dances for weddings conservative) is also against it.

Who was it that said every Trump insult of others is a projection of what people criticize him for?
It won't get there, but I'm scared to find out what % of the public would get behind that. That's one of the long term benefits to Trump - he'll galvanize and consolidate progressives. There's no attempt to equivocate about what the plan is.

I feel like this is both 100% true and 100% not true.

A ‘rogue’ group of staffers is tweeting secrets from the White House – BGR

Good to see. I'm one of those people. I let my ACLU membership lapse years ago, because I didn't like how gung ho they were on abortion rights (I'm far more of a moderate on abortion, which gets me shit from the left and right on this - I lost a conservative Catholic friend because he kept hectoring me on abortion, and in areas where it wasn't even close to appropriate.. anyways, I digress). But I decided to give $20 a month after this week.

They were also in full force at the protest at the Atlanta airport, where I spent a couple hours yelling and chanting yesterday (though sans sign).

yeah, saw the story that they normally get $4 million a YEAR, and they got $24 million last weekend. It's like "This couldn't happen, they'd rein him in" and guess what? Trump looked at the reins and laughed. and signed an executive order barring reins.

I don't like the way the ACLU does legal work. Their amicus briefs and oral arguments are always so smarmy, relying on appeals to emotion and cynicism rather than law. Or that might just be my local branch. But, I'm glad there's a mechanism there with the money and manpower to challenge Trump. We'll get a lot of clarity on a lot of legal issues in the next 4 years (or less).

I still can´t fathom that all that´s happened in the last week is real and not the flashback-chapter in a 1980s desaster movie/novel.

Right now Trump proves that a presidential system can be really, really dangerous, democracy or not. I realize there are limits to his power (and process in place to actually make stuff permanent), but boy is he determined to stretch those.

I don´t see how anybody can defend his actions as a whole, much less certain acts on itself. I absolutely can understand that people ask for and are due a overhaul of sth. like immigration as the situation changes, but the execution of it right now is just madness. There is not a single reason to detain (or send back) people legally living in a country. Seriously, how´d you react if the mayor of your town told you to stay the fuck out because of this or that reason when you come back on your commute to work or visiting friends and family in the next town ?
In terms of effectivenes it is also nothing more than a publicity stunt and basically also undermines a ton of efforts by the intelligence agency i would say.

There´s even seems to have been people who have been sent back or not allowed to board who merely had to change plans in the US (f.e. to go to central and South America), f.e. german citizens with dual-citizenship (f.e. from Syria) who are not legally allowed to drop the original citizenship !

And without being an expert on things, it seems insane that he is basically making this a personal thing. Basically what he is telling others is that people better be ready to negotiate (or "negotiate") with Trumpland because contracts signed by America have become null and void within seconds (the trade agreements as well). How can anybody think that in the 21st century you are going to get long term improvement with bullying as the main tool to do business ?

Don´t even get me started on how far back the guy will set us all when it comes to stuff like environmental regulations.

They did some bad work with the Chicago PD and it's led to a lot of people losing their lives last year. ACLU has always been hit or miss for me.

I admit I don't understand the nuances of immigration, but surely if the order was delayed/explained to be implemented in a week, "bad guys" couldn't just get on planes and come over.

Also, listening to Tom Cotton on Tony Kornheiser. He is 100% on the talking points. "Obama started it..." "most of my constituents support it..." "bad guys would hop on planes..."

Cotton is a partisan hack who has never had an independant thought in his life.

I decided to go on the Facebook page of the main Priest at my church. His most recent post is about not believing the media about the refugee stuff. Further down he has a post about a climate change denial scientist.

Since my daughter goes to the school, it's not like I can do anything but bite my tongue so I don't sacrifice her education.

Totally agree. Sounds like a bunch of bs, but in the back of my head I keep thinking that in the vein of everything else, it's possible and if it was true, this is exactly what it would sound like.

Today's EO requiring each new regulation to be matched by repealing two regulations is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen in government.

It was going to be an even two and two, but they couldn't locate MC Skat Kat for the prime time press conference.

I think this election (and really it's been building for the past few years) is a sign of just how much we've regressed as a society. There are so many tools out there to get information and yet people still want to do things because of a feeling. It's like, hey you may have gathered all these great data on the fact that this order would not have impacted anything, but we feel...

It's part of a broader war on intellectualism (or whatever you want to call it). If you start talking real numbers, you are just a liberal elitist listening to the liberally biased media. Maybe the media is biased, but I think it is because it has to be if people are constantly promoting lies and myths. I believe it was the son of one of the cabinet people who said of the crazy stupid pizza story...it's up to you guys to prove what we are saying is not true.

On a side note, I'm mostly worried about our environment. Sure there are probably too many regulations, and it may hurt some people. But the idea that the Monsantos and BPs and other companies of the world will look out for our environment if we just leave them alone is so stupid.

It's easy to dismiss climate change and environmental regulations when you're not going to be around to deal with consequences or be proven wrong. The idea that 97% of the world's scientists and NASA are conspiring on climate change and people with no scientific background or data are right because of what they feel is one of the most batshit crazy and potentially damaging things happening right now.

Same as its easy to back and rationalize some of the damaging things Trump is doing now when it doesn't have a direct impact on you or your family.

And by continuing to label Democrats as snobbish coastal elites they're just doing the same thing that was done to Trump voters this past election, painting everybody with too broad of a brush. There are a lot of people in middle America very concerned about Trump's actions. If he continues to jam these things down people's throats he'll sustain heavy losses in the mid-terms like what happened in 2010 and 1994, and Democrats will just overturn his policies in 2020. You have to work with the other side if you want something long lasting. The RCP average has Trump's approval rating at 42% and that doesn't factor in the fall out from this immigration fiasco.

So, contrary to what this thread might suggest, not EVERY single person with religious ties has lost their fucking minds?

That's encouraging, 'cause my already dim view of organized religion had been getting steadily worse with the anecdotes in this thread.

edit to add: Okay, maybe I'm overstating my hopes here. I won't draw a conclusion about the sanity issue, I'll just stop at "isn't actively working toward the continued destruction of the nation".

I remember the lovely passage on nationalism in the Sermon on the Mount.

That ended up being cut from the final version, actually, to make room for the part about not baking cakes for gay people.

Why would gay people need cakes when they are always packing so much fudge?

The White House is stubbornly refusing to walk back from their mistake of omitting Jews from the Holocaust Remembrance Day statement. In fact, they're claiming they did it intentionally and that they've been praised for it. This is one I don't get at all. It was an easy fix.

I don't think it was a mistake. Bannon has been accused of Antisemitism in the past.

:D Interestingly enough the Beatitudes was the Gospel reading this Sunday from the Revised Common Lectionary (which was put together in 1994).

I wonder why JIMG claims himself to be a Christian. It appears that his views are far more pagan (not in the negative way of the word, mind you). He appears to have an almost an extreme Nietschean or Nazi view of Christianity as being for the weak.

Oh I agree that this has Bannon's hands all over it. The mistake is in misjudging the political reaction to it (Preibus, for one, should've known better) and admitting it's intentional. They could've spun it as a mistake, which would've been very easy to do.

It's pretty hard to fuck up a Holocaust Rememberence speech.

I 100% thought it was a headline from The Onion.

If repealing 2 regulations doesn't work, then repeal 4. If that doesn't work, then repeal 8.

but then you'd have to be Catholic... not sure you could stomach that.

So in 10 days, Trump has gone after:
blacks (Chicago)
Hispanics (Wall)
Muslims (Ban)
Jews (Denial)

Technically women went after him. I don't believe he's really said anything about the LGBTQs, unless I missed that. Not a bad percentage so far.

A new talking point I heard is that "Obama deported more immigrants than all presidents of the 20th Century combined".

Notice how they left "illegal" off, and how they are now immigrants and not "criminals" anymore. And now he was incredibly effective, instead of "not lifting a finger" to stop it. Jeebus.

LGBT might be the only minority group he doesn't hate, yet he will probably screw them over anyways with his SCOTUS/AG appointments.

Part of me would like to transport some people in this thread back to the mid-90s and see how long it would take their brains to explode.

Not long is my guess :).

One of the most frustrating parts of reality for me is the degree to which people will go to justify their beliefs as being 'Christian'. People like JIMGA don't surprise me anymore, because of the whole axiom that you can, if you are bound and determined to, 'prove anything with a Bible verse' .. if you approach it with that goal. The capacity for rationalization is mindboggling.

I do think it's pretty clear though that that Jesus guy was pretty in favor of that whole organized religion bit.

Isn't that the same with Muslims/Terrorists and the Koran? (Edit, just to be safe - not accusing anyone of being a terrorist :) )

"I'd like to introduce you to our new chairperson of the Office of Governmental Oversight, jbmagic"

I think you have to assume that someone or multiple someones wanted the alt-right to know they are questioning the Holocaust.

Only so many hours in a day. Give it a week or two.

Under their current leadership, that's not even a religion at this point, it's just an uber-left wing political action group.

I'm not sure what to make of versions of Christianity whose followers aren't interested in helping people. It's just so different than the churches I grew up around.