Obama slams renewed Trump call for Muslim ban after Orlando shooting

[webfact]

Obama slams renewed Trump call for Muslim ban after Orlando shooting



"We don't have religious tests here"

WASHINGTON: -- US President Barack Obama has slammed White House hopeful Donald Trump’s renewed call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country, as last weekend’s gay nightclub massacre in Orlando continues to make waves in the presidential campaign.

“We have gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear and we have come to regret it,” Obama said in Washington on Tuesday, after a meeting of the National Security Council.

“This is a country founded on basic freedoms, including freedom of religion. We don’t have religious tests here.”

He added that: “If we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalise people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect.”

The president, without mentioning Trump by name, also dismissed the Republican’s criticism of Obama for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorism” to describe ISIL militants. Obama called the phrase a political distraction.

Obama reiterated that there is no indication a foreign terrorist group directed Sunday morning’s massacre but said the killer appears to have become radicalised online, describing him as “angry, disturbed and unstable”.

On Thursday, Obama will travel to Orlando to honour the 49 people slaughtered and more than 50 others injured.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-06-15

[webfact]

'Not the America we want': Obama blasts Trump's Muslim plans
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama angrily denounced Donald Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric on Tuesday, blasting the views of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee as a threat to American security and a menacing echo of some of the most shameful moments in U.S. history.

Obama's rebuke was his most searing yet of the man seeking to take his seat in the Oval Office. While the president has frequently dismissed Trump as a buffoon or a huckster, this time he challenged the former reality television star as a "dangerous" threat to the nation's safety, religious freedom and diversity.

"That's not the America we want. It does not reflect our democratic ideals," Obama declared in remarks that had been scheduled as simply updating the public on the counter-Islamic State campaign.

Obama walked listeners through a familiar litany of battlefield successes, but then came another message. Growing more animated as he spoke, Obama said Trump's "loose talk and sloppiness" could lead to discrimination and targeting of ethnic and religious minorities.

"We've gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear and we came to regret it," Obama said. "We've seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens and it has been a shameful part of our history."

Trump responded by suggesting that Obama is too solicitous of enemies.

"President Obama claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, and for that matter, the American people," the candidate said in a statement. "When I am president, it will always be America first."

Sunday's mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, has set off a new round of debate over counterterrorism, gun control and immigration — one that has exposed the political parties' starkly different approaches to national security. The presumed gunman was an American-born citizen whose parents came to the U.S. from Afghanistan more than 30 years ago.

Trump has used the carnage to renew his call to temporarily ban foreign Muslim from entering the country, and added a new element: a suspension of immigration from areas of the world with a proven history of terrorism against the U.S. and its allies.

The Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, also let out a full-throated response that Trump's speech should disqualify him.

"We don't need conspiracy theories and pathological self-congratulations," Clinton said Tuesday, in a speech that closely tracked Obama's. "We need leadership and concrete plans because we are facing a brutal enemy."

Both Clinton and Obama turned up the heat on Republicans, some of whom have squirmed with discomfort this week at the first glimpses of how their new leader handles national crises.

As Obama argued that Trump's ban on immigration would lead Muslim-Americans to believe their government had betrayed them, he urged Republicans to denounce the policy.

"Where does this stop?" Obama said, getting increasingly animated as he continued. "Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith? ... Do Republican officials actually agree with this?"

For some, the answer was plainly no. House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the highest-ranking elected GOP official, emphasized his opposition, saying he did not think such a ban was "in our country's interest" or "reflective of our principles not just as a party, but as a country."

Republicans have instead hoped to focus on a broader criticism of the president's counter-terrorism strategy as unfocused, ineffective and too soft of Islamic institutions and governments that support terrorism.

Obama directly addressed that argument, specifically taking on the Trump charge that his policies have been hampered by his refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam" when describing the forces urging attacks like the one in Orlando. Republicans have said the careful parsing is a sign of over-caution and political correctness that demonstrates denial about the groups responsible for the extremist view.

Trump said Sunday the president should resign if he does not use the phrase.

Obama dismissed the criticism as a "political talking point" and "not a strategy," and he pointed to his success in tracking Osama bin Laden and other leaders, as evidence of his success.

"There is no magic to the phrase 'radical Islam,'" he said. "Someone seriously thinks that we don't know who we are fighting? If there is anyone out there who thinks we are confused about who our enemies are — that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists who we have taken off the battlefield."

___

Associated Press writers Lisa Lerer in Cleveland and Donna Cassata in Washington contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-06-15

[shirtless]

Trump is correct on this one , why should we risk the general public just to appease the pc crowd. Its ok for Obama and Clinton as we are paying for their security,

[Andaman Al]

Trump is correct on this one , why should we risk the general public just to appease the pc crowd. Its ok for Obama and Clinton as we are paying for their security,

But you are happy to put at risk everyone else's 'General Public'. If you don't like cleaning up a mess stop starting them. Since 2003 everything has just been a 'war for profit' and the major arms dealers and construction companies loyal to the Republicans have benefitted greatly. Your views smack of apartheid and segregation and are a dark side to the American psyche that is born of a culture of fear, ignorance ( as most are taught that the earth is only 6000 years old it's hardly surprising) and violence. The forefathers would be turning in their graves over the likes of Trump being offered the keys to the Whitehouse. The USA is internally a downtrodden nation kept in a state of fear but that is nothing compared to what Trump and his administration will do to you.

This shooting was done by a home grown, home educated US citizen from an immigrant family who entered the USA 30 years ago. You are all the offspring of immigrants at some point. It was not done by a Muslim who had just entered the USA. What do you propose to do? Lock up all US born Muslims as well? I find that anyone would even consider this reprehensable. Lets just use the excuse for the Reps to lock up all the blacks and coloureds as well and get back to a good old white US of A

[jaidam]

Back when it was revealed Obamas middle name was Hussein, there was a frenzy to distance him from islam. I decided to wait and observe his actions before deciding where his loyalties lie. Since assuming power he has done everything he possibly can to weaken traditional white/christian culture and propagate islam throughout the world, and given excuse after excuse after deflection to stifle criticism of islam, and to make sure the migration of young military age muslim males speeds up worldwide. An apology is due from those that abused others voicing their concerns over this man and his loyalty to a hateful and antidemocratic ideology.

[brewsterbudgen]

Good to see him speaking up and denouncing Trump's loathsome policies.

[Pinot]

You can see the divided loyalties just in the above posts. There are those that believe in the principles that the country was founded on and then there are the wingnuts who believe a thin skinned racist bully has all the answers

Americans will be making a choice in six months between American principles, and the low-information, racism of mob mentality.

We know who will win. There are far more of us than you...thank Buddha.

[hdkane]

Trump appeals to many of the righteously frustrated citizens in the USA...but his call for a ban will ultimately hurt him...especially if he is seen exploiting the deaths of 50 people for political gain...he should walk this stance back asap....regroup...and proceed with more measured actions...

but I don't see it happening...his "brand" is to never apologize or retreat publicly...so I would expect his support to steadily decline until only his base and fervent supporters are left...

which means...President Clinton...

what an opportunity for a conservative candidate to hijack the nomination and possibly win election against clinton!!! but i don't see anyone with the balls to do it...

[bridge2bridge]

You can see the divided loyalties just in the above posts. There are those that believe in the principles that the country was founded on and then there are the wingnuts who believe a thin skinned racist bully has all the answers

Americans will be making a choice in six months between American principles, and the low-information, racism of mob mentality.

We know who will win. There are far more of us than you...thank Buddha.

And will you still be talking like this when the TERRORIST SCUM take over our countries.

[bassman]

The quiver lipping president was pissing all over himself on this, what an embarrassment, as all these attacks have happened on his watch at an ever increasing pace. His policies have failed and both him and the evil, racketeering queen are now blaming Trump in their display of being both clueless on the issue and weakness on how to solve it.

The FBI did not let the American public down on this one (all the clues were apparent), but it is Obama and his left, radical, Dept of Justice that have dictated the parameters for the FBI when investigating minorities. Particularly alarming is their policy on profiling. Obama said in a nation of 300 million this couldn't be stopped...if we looked harder in a community of less than 2 million, sure would up the odds.

[hugh2121]

All civilised countries should be making a stand against the islamists by following Trump's policy and keeping them out.

[Scott]

I don't have a problem with a healthy debate and who should or should not be admitted to any country, but when dealing with people and the human condition it doesn't work out so well. I know several US citizens who are married to Thai nationals and the wives are Muslim. Should they be prevented from visiting or moving to the US?

I worked in the ME and after Saddam re-invaded the northern No Fly Zone, he made it clear that all those who worked for foreign gov'ts were considered traitors and would be executed. Those working for US based organizations and the military were taken to Guam and screened for resettlement. (Some of them did not get past the security screening and were left in camps in Guam). Should they have been left to the whims of Saddam? Oh, and before answering, his threat to execute them was actually a part of Iraqi Iaw.

Should the local staff who work in Embassies, such as in Syria and Yemen be left there when things go pear-shaped?

These are some of the things that need to be considered when implementing any sort of ban.

[bassman]

I don't have a problem with a healthy debate and who should or should not be admitted to any country, but when dealing with people and the human condition it doesn't work out so well. I know several US citizens who are married to Thai nationals and the wives are Muslim. Should they be prevented from visiting or moving to the US?

I worked in the ME and after Saddam re-invaded the northern No Fly Zone, he made it clear that all those who worked for foreign gov'ts were considered traitors and would be executed. Those working for US based organizations and the military were taken to Guam and screened for resettlement. (Some of them did not get past the security screening and were left in camps in Guam). Should they have been left to the whims of Saddam? Oh, and before answering, his threat to execute them was actually a part of Iraqi Iaw.

Should the local staff who work in Embassies, such as in Syria and Yemen be left there when things go pear-shaped?

These are some of the things that need to be considered when implementing any sort of ban.

Scott, I agree with you that there are special exceptions just liked those you have discussed. The issue is not those that have a history with America and a record that can be verified for vetting. The problem is when we start bringing in 75,000 people from a refugee camp in Syria with no way of vetting their past. We should be sending blankets and food not tickets to the USA, as we have no idea who these people are.

[nottocus]

You can see the divided loyalties just in the above posts. There are those that believe in the principles that the country was founded on and then there are the wingnuts who believe a thin skinned racist bully has all the answers

Americans will be making a choice in six months between American principles, and the low-information, racism of mob mentality.

We know who will win. There are far more of us than you...thank Buddha.

What a choice for the yanks. The bigot or the lying witch.

[mopar71]

Good to see him speaking up and denouncing Trump's loathsome policies.

He has lost all credibility on the issue. He should stay silent until he goes into retirement then become one of the "1% of the 1%" off speaking fees like the last "man of the people" Democrat president.

[mopar71]

The quiver lipping president was pissing all over himself on this, what an embarrassment, as all these attacks have happened on his watch at an ever increasing pace. His policies have failed and both him and the evil, racketeering queen are now blaming Trump in their display of being both clueless on the issue and weakness on how to solve it.

The FBI did not let the American public down on this one (all the clues were apparent), but it is Obama and his left, radical, Dept of Justice that have dictated the parameters for the FBI when investigating minorities. Particularly alarming is their policy on profiling. Obama said in a nation of 300 million this couldn't be stopped...if we looked harder in a community of less than 2 million, sure would up the odds.

Thank you for saving me from explaining what I meant when I wrote Obama has lost all credibility on this issue.

[mopar71]

I don't have a problem with a healthy debate and who should or should not be admitted to any country, but when dealing with people and the human condition it doesn't work out so well. I know several US citizens who are married to Thai nationals and the wives are Muslim. Should they be prevented from visiting or moving to the US?

I worked in the ME and after Saddam re-invaded the northern No Fly Zone, he made it clear that all those who worked for foreign gov'ts were considered traitors and would be executed. Those working for US based organizations and the military were taken to Guam and screened for resettlement. (Some of them did not get past the security screening and were left in camps in Guam). Should they have been left to the whims of Saddam? Oh, and before answering, his threat to execute them was actually a part of Iraqi Iaw.

Should the local staff who work in Embassies, such as in Syria and Yemen be left there when things go pear-shaped?

These are some of the things that need to be considered when implementing any sort of ban.

You bring up a good point. I am all for checking who someone is before admitting them as immigrants but we should fast track the people (regardless of religion) who help us in these countries. I get angry when I read about a local Iraqi or Afghan who put his life (and his family's) on the line helping our soldiers as a translator is not allowed to emigrate to the US or EU. We just leave them behind to suffer a horrible fate.

[mrwebb8825]

I don't have a problem with a healthy debate and who should or should not be admitted to any country, but when dealing with people and the human condition it doesn't work out so well. I know several US citizens who are married to Thai nationals and the wives are Muslim. Should they be prevented from visiting or moving to the US?

I worked in the ME and after Saddam re-invaded the northern No Fly Zone, he made it clear that all those who worked for foreign gov'ts were considered traitors and would be executed. Those working for US based organizations and the military were taken to Guam and screened for resettlement. (Some of them did not get past the security screening and were left in camps in Guam). Should they have been left to the whims of Saddam? Oh, and before answering, his threat to execute them was actually a part of Iraqi Iaw.

Should the local staff who work in Embassies, such as in Syria and Yemen be left there when things go pear-shaped?

These are some of the things that need to be considered when implementing any sort of ban.

You bring up a good point. I am all for checking who someone is before admitting them as immigrants but we should fast track the people (regardless of religion) who help us in these countries. I get angry when I read about a local Iraqi or Afghan who put his life (and his family's) on the line helping our soldiers as a translator is not allowed to emigrate to the US or EU. We just leave them behind to suffer a horrible fate.

I feel for the small % of good people living in these screwed up counties BUT, it doesn't change the fact that the POTUS should be first and foremost concerned with American's safety. Maybe, in the year 2525, the leader of the Federation of Planets will be more inclusive. Until then, it's just not up to us to manage every other country's government.

[Publicus]

You can see the divided loyalties just in the above posts. There are those that believe in the principles that the country was founded on and then there are the wingnuts who believe a thin skinned racist bully has all the answers

Americans will be making a choice in six months between American principles, and the low-information, racism of mob mentality.

We know who will win. There are far more of us than you...thank Buddha.

What a choice for the yanks. The bigot or the lying witch.

Fear not for while the situation may be hopeless it is not serious.

It's natural for the people who believe the earth is 6000 years old to readily believe there is a messiah. That would extend to a political and cultural messiah. In strictly religious terms many of the Trump fans are still fighting the Crusades.

The clear majority of us are however in the 21st century and looking forward. Trump and his Birthers and the crowd that believes Barack Obama is secretly supporting jihad are just flat out crackpots. Period.

In respect of the OP:

Rick Klein: “All conventional wisdom about how a politician responds to a terrorist attack or a mass shooting had gone out the window with Trump’s first series of Tweets, where he accepted congratulations for being right and called on President Obama to resign from office.

Before Trump started speaking in New Hampshire, he had suggested that the president secretly might want ISIS to succeed. By the time he was done, he had misled his audience about the Orlando shooter’s birth status, and expanded his proposed Muslim ban to include all immigration from parts of the world with established ties to terrorism.”

“At some point, the talk about a new Donald Trump, or a reined in Donald Trump, or a ‘presidential’ Donald Trump – all of it will fade away. What’s left is a man who has played to the anger and fears of the American people to astounding effect, and apparently won’t stop until he’s either elected, or not.”

Not.

[Publicus]

Back when it was revealed Obamas middle name was Hussein, there was a frenzy to distance him from islam. I decided to wait and observe his actions before deciding where his loyalties lie. Since assuming power he has done everything he possibly can to weaken traditional white/christian culture and propagate islam throughout the world, and given excuse after excuse after deflection to stifle criticism of islam, and to make sure the migration of young military age muslim males speeds up worldwide. An apology is due from those that abused others voicing their concerns over this man and his loyalty to a hateful and antidemocratic ideology.

Here's an excellent summary statement of why the Unique American Mussolini is going to lose in November....

First Read: “This presidential contest is turning out to be more than a battle of Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative, blue vs. red. Instead, yesterday’s dueling speeches by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on the Orlando shooting revealed it to be an even bigger fight over what kind of country the United States of America should be — open, inclusive and tolerant, or closed, divided and intolerant? That’s the choice.”

The choice has never been more clear, i.e., the madam versus the madman.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Why don't you focus on protecting Americans from "Islamic" terrorists and not what The Donald says from day to day.

While you twiddle your thumbs at the alter of political correctness, Americans are getting slaughtered!

[Scott]

I don't have a problem with a healthy debate and who should or should not be admitted to any country, but when dealing with people and the human condition it doesn't work out so well. I know several US citizens who are married to Thai nationals and the wives are Muslim. Should they be prevented from visiting or moving to the US?

I worked in the ME and after Saddam re-invaded the northern No Fly Zone, he made it clear that all those who worked for foreign gov'ts were considered traitors and would be executed. Those working for US based organizations and the military were taken to Guam and screened for resettlement. (Some of them did not get past the security screening and were left in camps in Guam). Should they have been left to the whims of Saddam? Oh, and before answering, his threat to execute them was actually a part of Iraqi Iaw.

Should the local staff who work in Embassies, such as in Syria and Yemen be left there when things go pear-shaped?

These are some of the things that need to be considered when implementing any sort of ban.

Scott, I agree with you that there are special exceptions just liked those you have discussed. The issue is not those that have a history with America and a record that can be verified for vetting. The problem is when we start bringing in 75,000 people from a refugee camp in Syria with no way of vetting their past. We should be sending blankets and food not tickets to the USA, as we have no idea who these people are.

Thanks for the response Bassman and Mopar. That's my only point is that there needs to be a serious discussion and there will always be exceptions.

It's not good for those the US lets in to face a life of discrimination and dislike. It's also not realistic to have a blanket ban, IMO. I am reasonably sure regardless of who ends up being president that there will be a reduction of the number of people from the ME allowed in.

The active involvement of the US in the Middle East means a lot fewer with connections to the US, such as working for the military etc..

On a side note, some of the translators have faced a very serious threat.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Trump is correct on this one , why should we risk the general public just to appease the pc crowd. Its ok for Obama and Clinton as we are paying for their security,

Nobody is able to answer me, as you support this you ll probably have a solution :

How will you know people are muslim? Offer a mandatory ham and cheese sandwich at the borders?

This is stupid unrealistic moronic idea.

[Jingthing]

Hopefully the vile monster will never be elected but I doubt even if elected it will be practical (not to mention constitutional) to ban entry of all Muslims. First of all enforcement is impossible. Sure you can identify people with the name Mohammed but it's not always that easy, and you can ask but people can lie. He gave a hint of what he more likely would do. Ban entry from many more nations that are considered problematic. That can be done without any constitutional concerns.

[Berkshire]

Trump is correct on this one , why should we risk the general public just to appease the pc crowd. Its ok for Obama and Clinton as we are paying for their security,

Nobody is able to answer me, as you support this you ll probably have a solution :

How will you know people are muslim? Offer a mandatory ham and cheese sandwich at the borders?

This is stupid unrealistic moronic idea.

Agree. Trump supporters need to stop and think about this for one moment. How can you tell if a person is Muslim? Is their religion on their passport? And Muslim countries do have non-Muslims. So if you ban everyone from, say, Malaysia, you're also banning Christians and Buddhists. And there are millions of Muslims with EU passports. Ban them too? Even if somehow a Trump administration was to successfully put a ban on all Muslims, what's to stop a terrorist from saying he's not a Muslim?

I'm not even going to go into the millions of Muslim-Americans who are already US citizens...like the Orlando killer.

In other words, Trumps idea has zero chance of success. What's worse, it will succeed in turning a bunch more moderate Muslims into radical jihadist.

[edko]

Trump appeals to many of the righteously frustrated citizens in the USA...but his call for a ban will ultimately hurt him...especially if he is seen exploiting the deaths of 50 people for political gain...he should walk this stance back asap....regroup...and proceed with more measured actions...

but I don't see it happening...his "brand" is to never apologize or retreat publicly...so I would expect his support to steadily decline until only his base and fervent supporters are left...

which means...President Clinton...

what an opportunity for a conservative candidate to hijack the nomination and possibly win election against clinton!!! but i don't see anyone with the balls to do it...

There is a conservative candidate, but he's not getting the publicity that he deserves. Gary Johnson, the former Republican 2 term Governor of New Mexico will be on the ballot in all 50 states as the Libertarian candidate.

[Pinot]

The quiver lipping president was pissing all over himself on this, what an embarrassment, as all these attacks have happened on his watch at an ever increasing pace. His policies have failed and both him and the evil, racketeering queen are now blaming Trump in their display of being both clueless on the issue and weakness on how to solve it.

The FBI did not let the American public down on this one (all the clues were apparent), but it is Obama and his left, radical, Dept of Justice that have dictated the parameters for the FBI when investigating minorities. Particularly alarming is their policy on profiling. Obama said in a nation of 300 million this couldn't be stopped...if we looked harder in a community of less than 2 million, sure would up the odds.

Thank you for saving me from explaining what I meant when I wrote Obama has lost all credibility on this issue.

The FBI should be able to water board those damn 2 million Muslims. That would make America safe...after we throw out the 12 million Mexicans and send the darkies back to Africa. Then, we can talk about the jews.

This is why Trump's campaign is a burning dumpster fire. Trump and his minions are so, so, far out there in this bizzaro world of hate and fear. Half the Republican party doesn't want anything to do with them.

Credibility on what issue? The parameters the FBI have on investigating minorities? You mean the bill of rights? Equal protection under the law? Freedom of Religion?

The Trumpeteers can't wait for the fascist dictator to goose step in and show this filth the door but as of today...American citizens still have rights. Obama and the department of justice? The hate isn't just irrational, it's misplaced.

I really missed no hearing how Obama lost all his credibility over the Orlando shooting.

Unfortunately, one of the American rights is to be able to walk into one the thousands of gun stores all over the US and buy an AR-15! Now that is scary...and weird. Fear the paranoid loon who buys the next AR-15. He's a lot scarier to me than some phantom terrorist.

I don't get this irrational fear of Muslims. Now, I do have a legitimate fear of guns. That's because 35,000 Americans are killed by guns a year. Odds a Muslim terrorist (the guy in Orlando was not a Muslim terrorist) will kill you are 20,000,000 to 1. Do the math and let me know what I should be afraid of? Fear rules the wingnuts.

Trump and his minions are a match made in Wingnuttia. The craziness grows by the day...

[dunroaming]

This is just what we want. The more that Trump is condemned for his lunatic rants the more the mob will cheer him on!

More popcorn over here please!

[Trouble]

In view of what is a serious problem with Islamic religion wanting to perpetuate a 7th and 8th century ideology in the 21st century and spread and live that ideology in the West, it puzzles me that so many here are so willing to trounce on Trump's statements and support Obama and Clinton on this immigration issue. I have seen no where where Trump has advocated a permanent ban on Muslims immigrating to the USA. He has asked for a "temporary" ban on those immigrants coming from countries where there is a problem with this ideology. He has repeatedly asked for a ban based on the fact that everyone in the intelligence and law enforcement community in the Obama Administration have stated there is no way to know who is coming in and vet these people at this time. The plight of refugees is a horrible situation but everyone is more than aware of what is going on in Europe. Trumps has gone so far as to advocate safe zones in the Middle East for these refugees and financial help to do that. We all know that there are honest and decent Muslims living everywhere. In fact I just returned from Azerbaijan where Sunni's and Shiites live side by side without problems. There are places where Muslims live and work in peace with each other. Unfortunately however, there are people who cannot accept the very Western values of the countries they adopt to live in. Sorry but on this issue, I do back putting a temporary halt to taking in 10's of thousands of refugees who do not want to integrate in to Western civilization as we know it. The news, Obama, and Clinton keep spinning this as an anti Muslim issue against Trump and it is pure political rhetoric. Comparisons of the Japanese internment during WWII are just spin. Trump has not suggested such a thing for Muslims in the USA nor has Trump expressed anti Muslim sentiment. He has simply asked for a temporary ban on taking in immigrants of unknown origin and ideology.

Obama's speech yesterday, when much of the population was expecting information on the current situation with regard to the situation in Orlando, was not the time and place for anti-Trump political rhetoric. I'm not a big Obama fan although I did vote for him in 2008 but in my mind that kind of speech should have been left for the campaign trail.

[rgraham]

Time for this guy to move out!