Monday, January 30, 2017

These 73 sitting Democrats voted to ban visas from some Muslim countries. That law still on the books! ^ 

These 73 sitting Democrats voted to ban visas from some Muslim countries. That law still exists!

Trump’s executive order is so modest that the foundation of it is essentially existing law. That law was passed unanimously by both bodies of Congress in 2002. In fact, it garnered the support of 16 Democrat senators and 57 Democrat House members who are still serving in their respective bodies! Following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%). Among other provisions, it restricted non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror:

Protester To Daily Signal: Obama's Temporary Iraqi Ban In 2011 Was Fine "Because I Love Him"

Townhall ^ | 1/30/17 | Matt Vespa 

The Daily Signal’s Genevieve Wood ventured to Dulles Airport to interview protesters, who are railing against President Donald J. Trump’s executive order on immigration, specifically the so-called Muslim ban on travel and visa applications. The president has stressed this is temporary. He’s also well within his constitutional authority to issue this order. Moreover, they’re nations that Obama included in his 2015 revision to the visa waiver program. This isn’t a ban either, though the Obama White House seems to have laid the groundwork for Trump’s executive order by initially selecting the nations of concern. Also, three of the seven nations in Trump's executive order are designated as state sponsors of terrorism.
Again, this isn’t a Muslim ban. People from Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, can still come here. The 1965 Hart-Celler Act does not apply because the Trump White House issued this order under a national security priority, not because he wanted to re-skew or reestablish immigration quotas from western European nations, which was the basis for the act.
Wood, who broadcasted on Facebook Live, interviewed several protesters, who were cordial—misguided—but no punches thrown. Yet, one protester towards the end of the broadcast said that the main difference between Obama and Trump is that the former didn’t ban people. Actually, he did. As Wood noted, the Obama administration stopped processing visa applications from Iraq in 2011 for six months after al-Qaeda operatives were found to have slipped through the vetting by applying as refugees and then being relocated to the U.S. a few were discovered in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
I don’t remember protesters going nuts over that moment in history. When Wood told the protester this fact, she asked her if it bothered her.
“No, I love president Obama. I wish he was still here,” replied the protester. Well, that pretty much sums up why the Left will never, even say anything bad about the man. Also, would it surprise anyone that 14 years ago, Democrats wanted to halt issuing visas to some Middle Eastern countries? Yeah, that happened too.
Full broadcast here:

Amazon Is Working With Lawmakers to Counter Trump’s Immigration Order

The Wall Street Journal ^ | January 30, 2017 | Laura Stevens Inc. Chief Executive Jeff Bezos said the e-commerce giant is working with lawmakers and state officials to explore legal options to counter President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.

In an email to staff Monday, Mr. Bezos said the company has reached out to members of Congress to explore legislative options. The company’s public policy team in Washington, D.C., also has reached out to senior administration officials to make clear its opposition, Mr. Bezos wrote:

In one of the strongest signs of corporate disapproval of the order, Mr. Bezos said Amazon has prepared a declaration of support for a suit expected to be filed against the order by the Washington state Attorney General. “We are working on other legal options, as well,” he added.

“To our employees in the U.S. and around the world who may be directly affected by this order, I want you to know that the full extent of Amazon’s resources are behind you,” Mr. Bezos added.

Leaders from across the technology industry have criticized Mr. Trump’s temporary immigration ban on foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries, expressing concern about the order’s effect on their employees, with some executives saying the ban violated their personal and company principles.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Here’s A Short List Of Foreign-Born Terrorists...leftist Reporters Can’t Believe it Exist

The Federalist ^ | 1/30/17 | Kyle Schideler 

When arguing with the Left about matters of national security and terrorism, one becomes accustomed to their habitual moving of goal posts and artificial construction of sample sizes that deliberately exclude relevant cases.
The most notorious example, of course, is the beloved “since 9/11…” canard, such as the oft-repeated although false claim that since 9/11 right-wing terrorists have killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists.
The recent executive order by the Trump administration on immigration led to an urgent desire to proclaim that there is no terrorism threat from immigrants. The most egregious example: A tweet from The New York Times’ White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, who is also a CNN analyst. She posed the question, “Other than San Bernardino shootings, has there been a terrorist attack involving a non-US-born attacker since 9/11?”
Of course, there is no sensible reason for excluding San Bernardino shooter Tasheen Malik, who was born in Pakistan, from a list of terror attacks. The attack killed 14 and took place only last year.
But even within the confines of such a ludicrously constructed sample, the question surprised more up-to-speed denizens of Twitter, who quickly bombarded Haberman with lists of successful and unsuccessful attacks carried out by non-U.S.-born individuals, including some of the most notorious recent terror attacks.

Yes, Foreign-Born Immigrants Have Committed Terrorism

Among such individuals: the Tsarnaev brothers of the Boston Marathon bombing, who were both born abroad. Tamerlan was born in Kyrgyzstan in 1986, and Dzhokhar was reportedly born in Dagestan.
The 2015 Chattanooga Recruiting Center shooter, Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, was born in Kuwait and lived in Jordan before migrating to the United States at the age of six. He killed five people.
Ohio State University attacker Abdul Razak Artan, who ran over several fellow students with a car before attacking them with a butcher knife, was a refugee born in Somalia who had only been in the United States for two years.
Ahmad Khan Rahimi, born in Afghanistan, detonated a bomb near a 5K run event, then another in downtown Manhattan in October of last year.
Dahir Adan, a Somali born in Kenya who immigrated to the United States as a child, launched a mass stabbing attack at a St. Cloud Minnesota mall in 2016. And these are only a few recent examples.

Let’s Just Define Away Counterexamples

While it might be amusing to imagine that a mainstream media figure of some note is totally oblivious to any of the details of recent terror attacks, it’s almost beside the point. Had Haberman known better, perhaps she’d have simply constructed a question that did meet what appears to be her preformed opinion that foreign-born individuals are nearly incapable of representing a threat.
That was the position CNN took in its piece on the Trump administration’s executive order. The piece moved the goal posts yet again, insisting that no refugee had carried out a fatal terror attack in the United States. That’s surely cold comfort to the families of those killed by Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
After their fingerprints were discovered on Iraqi IEDs, the two Iraqi refugees were caught in an FBI counterterrorism investigation, where Alwan bragged about using a sniper rifle to kill American troops abroad. The two plotted to kill returning U.S. troops as well. An IED constructed by Alwan is believed to have killed four Pennsylvania National Guardsmen in 2005.
That case resulted in a six-month freeze on Iraqi refugee resettlement in 2011 as U.S. authorities attempted to clamp down on serious screening problems. But, according to CNN’s twisted logic, these Iraqi refugees were never a threat. Ironically, the more attacks American law enforcement successfully prevent or mitigate, the less of a threat there is, according to the CNN model.
If one were truly interested in whether there is a terror threat from individuals born abroad, one would examine the totality of activity, not a narrowly constructed definition aimed to minimize it. That’s what senators Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions did last June when they examined 580 individuals successfully prosecuted on terrorism offenses from September 2001 until 2014. According to the senators, 380 were foreign-born and at least 40 were refugees. While not all of those cases involved successful or attempted terror attacks, all involved cases that were terrorism-related.
Haberman’s offhand tweet is a snapshot of the willingness of the mainstream media to engage in reflective self-censoring, a kind of doublethink, where reporters seem to remain proudly unaware of key evidence that would contradict their pre-established conclusions. Unfortunately for The New York Times correspondent, not everyone on social media was inclined to play along.

Justice Dept. will not defend executive order on travel restrictions (guess what her race is)

CNN ^ | January 30, 2017 | Evan Perez and Jeromy Diamond 

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has told Justice Department lawyers not to make legal arguments defending President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees, according to sources familiar with the order.

The move sets up a dramatic clash between the White House and Yates, who was appointed by Obama and is set to serve until Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump's nominee for attorney general, is confirmed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

People Are Boycotting Starbucks After CEO Announces Plan To Hire Thousands Of Refugees (and zero Americans)!

Business Insider ^ | 1-30-2017 | Kate Taylor 

Some Starbucks customers are threatening to boycott the coffee giant after its CEO took a stand against President Donald Trump's executive order barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US.

On Sunday, Starbucks announced it planned to hire 10,000 refugees worldwide in the next five years.

"We are living in an unprecedented time, one in which we are witness to the conscience of our country, and the promise of the American Dream, being called into question," CEO Howard Schultz wrote in a letter to Starbucks employees about the plan.

While many customers were immediately supportive of Starbucks' actions on social media, others threatened to boycott after the letter's release.
"Upon hearing about your decision to hire 10000 refugees instead of Americans I will no longer spend any money at Starbucks," one such Facebook user wrote on Starbucks' page.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Media hysteria designed to sow fear and division

Canada Free Press ^ | 01/30/17 | Herman Cain 

Move on, snowflakes. The rest of America already has.

When irresponsible reporting is combined with irrational reactions, it instills fear and confusion in people’s minds. That’s what the liberal media are doing to some people, because both are still stuck in a state of bitterness.

Irresponsible reporting nowadays is well recognized as media bias. Some reporters and news outlets will slant the news, omit parts of a story or flat-out lie to make the story fit the political narrative they want to present.

Rep. John Lewis and Top Aide Hit With Ethics Complaint ^ | 1/30/17 | Lachlan Markay 

A watchdog group is asking congressional ethics officials to investigate Rep. John Lewis (D., Ga.) and his chief of staff over apparent violations of House ethics rules, according to a letter released on Monday.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust's letter is asking the Office of Congressional Ethics to probe Lewis chief of staff Michael Collins' dual roles in the congressman's Washington office and as the treasurer for his 2016 reelection campaign.

Ethics rules bar senior House staff from serving in any fiduciary role for a political organization, and specifically mentioned campaign treasurers as a prohibited position for such staffers.

FACT's complaint doesn't just target Collins; it claims that Lewis himself is culpable for ethics violations by his top staffer.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Feds Blame “Lapse in Vetting” for Admitting Syrian Refugees with Terrorist Ties into U.S.

Judicial Watch ^ | JANUARY 26, 2017 | Judicial Watch 

Dozens of Syrian refugees already living in the Unites States may have ties to terrorism and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is downplaying it, claiming federal agents missed “possible derogatory information” about the immigrants due to “a lapse in vetting.” Among those who slipped through the cracks is a man who failed a polygraph test after applying to work at a U.S. military installation and another who communicated with an Islamic State leader.
Information about this scandalous security lapse comes from federal agents with firsthand knowledge of the situation. They spoke to a mainstream newspaper on condition of anonymity, as many Judicial Watch sources who expose delicate information do, out of fear. This is the type of case the government works hard to keep quiet and consequences could be serious for those who blow the whistle. The news article reveals that federal agents are now “reinvestigating the backgrounds” of the dozens of Syrian refugees because somehow DHS discovered that the lapse in vetting allowed refugees with “potentially negative information in their files to enter the country.” The newspaper attributes the information to “U.S law enforcement officials” who were not authorized to discuss the matter.
Coincidentally, on the day this story broke a national newswire service reported that President Donald Trump drafted an executive order to stop accepting Syrian refugees. The president also plans to suspend issuing visas for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Under President Barrack Obama’s lax immigration policies, large numbers of terrorists from some of these nations entered the U.S., including members of ISIS and other radical Islamic groups. They include individuals who have engaged in or attempted to engage in acts of terrorism, conspired or attempted to conspire to provide material support to a terrorist organization or engaged in criminal conduct inspired by terrorist ideology. Some have been convicted and sentenced in American courts.
Additionally, the Obama administration was very generous in granting citizens of Muslim nations special amnesty protections and residency benefits in the U.S. During a five-year period, Obama’s DHS issued around 680,000 green cards to foreigners from Muslim countries, according to the agency’s figures. Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya were among the nations. In 2015 Judicial Watch reported on a special “humanitarian” amnesty program offered to illegal aliens from Yemen, an Islamic Middle Eastern country well known as an Al Qaeda breeding ground. Yemen is the headquarters of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the State Department has revealed that AQAP militants carried out hundreds of attacks including suicide bombers, vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), ambushes, kidnappings and targeted assassinations.
Circling back to Syrian refugees, as Obama let thousands settle in the U.S. his own intelligence and immigration officials admitted that individuals with ties to terrorist groups used the program to try to infiltrate the country and that there is no way to properly screen them. In 2015 the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) confirmed that individuals with ties to terrorist groups in Syria tried to gain entry to the U.S. through the refugee program and that the program is “vulnerable to exploitation from extremist groups seeking to send operatives to the West.” Before that the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Matthew Emrich, admitted during a congressional hearing that there’s no way to adequately screen Syrian refugees because the Syrian government doesn’t have an intelligence database to run checks against.
Additionally, FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach conceded that the U.S. government has no system to properly screen Syrian refugees.

Trump's Heartland Voters Shrug Off Global Uproar Over Immigration Ban!

Reuters ^ | 1-30-2017 | Laila Kearney 

Many of President Donald Trump’s core political supporters had a simple message on Sunday for the fiercest opponents of his immigration ban: Calm down.
The relaxed reaction among the kind of voters who drove Trump’s historic upset victory - working- and middle-class residents of Midwest and the South - provided a striking contrast to the uproar that has gripped major coastal cities, where thousands of protesters flocked to airports where immigrants had been detained.
In the St. Louis suburb of Manchester, Missouri, 72-year-old Jo Ann Tieken characterized the president as bringing reason into an overheated debate.
“Somebody has to stand up, be the grown up and see what we can do better to check on people coming in,” she said. “I’m all for everybody to stop and take a breath … Just give it a chance.”
By executive order on Friday, Trump banned immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen – and temporarily halted the entry of refugees.
In the electoral strongholds for Trump, residents seemed nonplussed about the uproar flashing across their television screens. They shrugged off concerns about botched execution, damage to foreign relations and legal challenges across the country.
In New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities, Trump's action set off an outpouring of anger.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, evoked an image of the Statue of Liberty weeping. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York teared up himself on camera as he seethed over the “mean-spirited and un-American” immigration ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

It's legal. It's temporary. obama did it. Carter did it. Get over it!

Flopping Aces ^ | 01-30-17 | DrJohn 

He did it. He said he would do it and he did it.

The liberal establishment has lost its mind over Donald Trump's making good on a campaign promise to institute "extreme vetting" of immigrants seeking refuge in this country.

The stupid is deep and profound. barack obama did the same thing in 2011. Jimmy Carter did much the same thing. Sean Davis pointed it out and then WaPo's fact checker shoves both feet in his own mouth trying to defend the press's dereliction.

Kessler then opened his mouth

And proves that the press has been on its knees for 8 years

Now for the good part. For years I have said that liberals have zero long term memory, especially for actions by liberals.
It's time to crank up the Wayback Machine. To absolute astonishment of liberals, Donald Trump is making good on his campaign promises. He did promise he would enact "extreme vetting." Let's look at the responses back then:
PoliticoThe case for extreme vetting
The many filters that have been used throughout American history to determine who will and will not get an entry visa have an obvious purpose. Yes, some of them, in the hindsight of history, seemed to have had no constructive purpose. But for the most part, they helped to strengthen the social and political fabric of our country and they helped to define the common set of values that distinguishes us as Americans. Or to quote Alexander Hamilton again: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits.”So, regardless of what you think about the Trump candidacy, the next time you hear that Trump’s proposal for immigrant vetting is un-American, the correct response is that it is American to its core. And the next time you hear that Trump’s proposal is crazier than crazy, the correct response is that—given the mess the world is in—it is the notion that we should not vet immigrants more carefully that is certifiably insane.
Washington ExaminerImmigrants agree with Trump's 'extreme vetting' plan, terror nation ban
A new survey of immigrants shows that more than six in 10 agree with Donald Trump's call for "extreme vetting" of foreigners coming to America, and even more older immigrants back his plan to stop migration from terrorist nations until the U.S. comes up with a better vetting scheme.
Washington PostTrump’s ‘extreme vetting’ is harsh, but it would be legal
But in advancing a litmus test for entry, a President Trump would be claiming the same unilateral authority so willingly yielded to Obama on immigration over the past eight years. Obama has asserted sweeping, unilateral authority in his opposition to state laws seeking to force deportations. Democrats, including Clinton, enthusiastically supported Obama’s assertion of such unilateral powers in exempting undocumented immigrants from deportations. In doing so, they have laid the foundation for Trump to push for the inverse of those policies. It would be difficult, now, for Clinton to claim that Trump cannot use the same unilateral powers to reduce entries as opposed to deportations.
It is opined that legal challenges to Trump's extreme vetting will quickly fail:
The Congress carved out protection only for a limited class of aliens: those who qualify for an immigrant visa. Even here, the only limits are race, sex, nationality, but no limits on the presidential power to exclude based on religion, terror designations, poor vetting documentation or anything that can be called a matter of “procedure.” All refugees can be legally excluded. All Muslims can be legally excluded. All Sharia law supporters can be legally excluded.
Thus, the federal court is likely to dismiss the CAIR case, as the issues raised go mostly beyond the jurisdiction of the court, a political question in which the Court is the wrong venue for CAIR’s complaints. Another liberal lawsuit loss likely awaits. Maybe the lawsuit lovers would benefit from what former President Obama once reminded us all: elections have consequences.
If Trump haters bristle at Trump's actions, they have one person to blame- barack obama. He made it all possible:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Connoisseur of Chaos

City Journal ^ | Winter, 2017 | Stefan Kanfer 

The dystopian vision of George Soros, billionaire funder of the Left
When the dust was cleared and the debris swept away, he stood revealed as Hillary Clinton’s most generous billionaire donor. Yet his name rarely surfaced during the presidential campaign—and that’s generally the way he likes it. Dark Money, Jane Mayer’s book about covert political funding, refers to the Koch brothers more than 300 times in its excoriation of the “radical right” but mentions progressive icon George Soros just six times; three are footnotes.
One of the planet’s richest men, his past marred with crimes and misdemeanors, the 86-year-old billionaire skates on. More than a decade ago, he moved his financial headquarters to Curaçao, a tax-free haven in the Caribbean designed for monied hypocrites who talk one game and play another. The place is not bulletproof; on occasion, Soros has been accused—and even convicted—of insider trading. A French court found him guilty of that crime and levied a fine of $2.3 million. In the parlance of the billionaires’ club, that was small change. Investigative journalists, a dwindling cadre, show little interest in him. They prefer to scrutinize safer, softer targets.
If they took even a cursory look, though, they would see that Soros’s global reach and influence far outstrip those of the Koch brothers or other liberal bogeymen—and that underlying it all is a vision both dystopian and opportunistic. “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order,” Soros has declared, “is the United States.” Ergo, that constitutional republic must be weakened and its allies degraded. The Sorosian world order—one of open borders and global governance, antithetical to the ideals and experience of the West—could then assume command.
George Soros has been an escape artist since his adolescence in Budapest, when Nazi occupiers gave him his first life lessons.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Where was LEFTY, Democrat Outrage when Bill Clinton Called for End of Illegal Immigration

GP ^ | 01/20/17 | Red 

Over the weekend in the wake of President Donald Trump’s executive order on illegal immigration, the LEFT, Democrats, Hollywood and moonbats alike all lost their collective minds in horror and outrage at such actions.
But where were they when their own Democrat president Bill Clinton called for the very same things during his 1995 State of the Union address? What happened to the LEFT’s notion that we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws? So does the Democrat party no longer think we are not a nation of laws? Seriously, are we or are we not a nation of laws? Maybe that can explain exactly why Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, the GOP controls both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, only 16 states of Democrat governors and Sate Houses are overwhelming Republican.
We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump Is Doing What He Said He’d Do!

Five Thirty Eight ^ | January 29, 2017 | Nate Silver, founder and editor in chief 

It’s up against some stiff competition, but there’s a runaway front-runner in the “wrongest idea of 2016” derby. It’s the aphorism, once fashionable on the morning-talk show circuit, that the media mistakenly took Donald Trump “literally but not seriously,” when they should have taken him “seriously but not literally,” as Trump’s supporters did.
If the idea is that the media should have taken Trump more seriously, then I’d emphatically agree. But it turns out that they probably ought to have taken him literally too. It’s been an exceptionally busy first 10 days in office for President Trump, culminating in an executive order on Friday that banned immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days and banned all new refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days. (Over the weekend, several courts issued rulings temporarily blocking parts of Trump’s order.)
Almost all of the actions that Trump has undertaken, however, are consistent with statements and policy positions he issued repeatedly on the campaign trail and during the presidential transition. It was more than a year ago that Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” for instance. (Friday’s executive order stops short of that, but Trump allies such as Rudy Giuliani have spoken of the order as a legal workaround that seeks to accomplish the same objectives as a Muslim immigration ban.) Another executive order called for building a border wall with Mexico, which was perhaps the signature policy position of Trump’s campaign. And Trump might even try to “make Mexico pay for it” by imposing a tariff on Mexican imports....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Do The Democrat Leaders Really Believe In Socialism/Communism?

blueunicorn6 | 1/29/2017 | blueunicorn6 

Why do Democrats behave the way they do?

That's a question that probably ever Conservative has asked at one time or another. They sure don't vote like we do. That was very evident in the last election.
As the mind controls the body, we can infer that Democrats thus think differently than we do. The big question is, "What are Democrats thinking that would cause them to vote for the Democrat candidate instead of the Conservative candidate?"
There have been many ideas put forward to explain Democrat voting behavior. One thought is that they vote the way their parents voted. Another explanation given is that they are easily convinced by famous people in our country who vote Democrat.
One of the best known explanations for Democrat voting behavior is that they vote Democrat because the Democrat leaders believe in socialism/communism and they have convinced many people that socialism/communism is a great way to live and that the Democrat Party wants to implement socialism/communism in the United States.
But is that true?
Do the leaders of the Democrat Party really want to implement socialism/communism in this country?
Or is that just a smoke screen to win elections?
The big name behind socialism/communism is Karl Marx.
You can boil down all his thoughts and writing, and boy did he have a lot of those, to one sentence.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Kind of an interesting sentence. So how do we examine it. Well, I choose to examine it from two perspectives. The first perspective is what the Democrat Party says they believe about this sentence. The second perspective will be from the view of reality.
"From each according to his abilities"
THE DEMOCRAT VIEW: We all have inherent abilities. Some of us are ballet dancers. Some people are born to be scientists. People are happiest when they are busy doing the work that they have the natural ability to do. They will be so happy that they will produce many new inventions and a sufficiency of all products. People will not be held back by the prejudices of the rich capitalists.
THE REALITY: Somebody has to determine what every bodies abilities are or everyone will think their ability is to be a movie star or writer. And who decides that? Can people change their abilities with ducat ion and training. Yes. But someone has to slop the hogs. The reality is that there are good jobs and some really nasty jobs. Who decides who gets these jobs? Well, the bosses do. But I thought there were no bosses? See. Reality really shatters dreams. So you are always going to have a majority who feel that the bosses are screwing them. Doesn't sound so utopian, huh?
"To each according to his needs"
THE DEMOCRAT VIEW: How many needs does a person really have? They need so many calories per day. They need water. They need clothing. They need a warm dry place to sleep. Once all people have these needs met, then we can move forward to address other issues like recreation and philosophy. We will produce a perfect world with perfect people.
THE REALITY: Who decides a person's needs? Maybe I need a Mercedes. Maybe I need plastic surgery. Who decides if these needs will be met? Well, again, the bosses will decide what you really need. This inherently leads to shortages as that Mercedes worker "needs" time off and the Democrat Governor "needs" a Mercedes more than you do. Human beings don't stop being human beings under socialism/communism. They don't become robots with no feelings who can be started and stopped at will.
Communism fails every place it is tried. Human beings are human beings with all kinds of emotions.
Do the Democrat Party leaders know this?
Of course they do.
So why do they keep hinting that they are socialists/communists if they know it doesn't work?
Because they know that most people don't take a hard look at socialism/communism. And without taking a hard look, people can easily be convinced that they actually can have something (their needs met) for nothing (no great abilities means no hard work).
My Dad taught me that "Actions speak louder than words."
President Obama talked a lot about policies that were socialist/communist. What were his actions after he left the Presidency? Did he go to Turnip Commune #43 to help pull weeds?
Off to a private island for some vacay.
How about Hillary?
Did she sell everything she owns and give the money to the poor?
No pulling turnips for her either.
The Democrat Party leaders have absolutely no intention of bringing socialism/communism to our country.
They have every intention of putting more money in their own pockets.
This hinting at socialism/communism is just a smokescreen to get votes and donation money.
It is to blind us to their true purpose which is to enrich themselves.

Understanding Trump’s Refugee Order

LifeZette. ^ | January 29, 2017 | Brendan Kirby 

President suspends migration from terror hotbeds while vetting process reviewed.
President Trump on Friday signed an executive order indefinitely halting the Syrian refugee program, barring all refugees for 120 days and prohibiting entry of all residents from certain high-risk countries for 90 days.
At a ceremony swearing-in Defense Secretary James Mattis, Trump said the suspension would allow time to improve procedures to screen for potential terrorists.
President Trump on Friday signed an executive order indefinitely halting the Syrian refugee program, barring all refugees for 120 days and prohibiting entry of all residents from certain high-risk countries for 90 days.
At a ceremony swearing-in Defense Secretary James Mattis, Trump said the suspension would allow time to improve procedures to screen for potential terrorists.
“I’m establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America,” he said. “We don’t want them here.”
He added: “We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people.”
The order will cut the number of refugees America will take in the fiscal year that ends in September to 50,000, less than half the 110,000 limit set by former President Barack Obama. The plan includes exceptions for religious minorities claiming religious persecution.
The Associated Press reported that the State Department identified seven majority-Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen — where the 90-day immigration ban will apply. Trump’s order instructs diplomatic and intelligence officials to determine the information they need to adequately vet people coming into the United States.
Unless those countries provide within 60 days the information American officials request, their citizens will be barred from traveling to the United States.
Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, praised Trump for undertaking a long overdue review of America’s refugee program.
“It’s a very good start forward,” she told LifeZette. “Our refugee resettlement policies have needed reform for a long time.”
A long list of liberal activists, however, lined up to condemn Trump. Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, called the policy discriminatory and ineffective.
“President Trump rode a wave of bigotry into the White House and ushered in a new era of hostility against American Muslims,” he said in a statement. “He campaigned as a demagogue and is now governing as a demagogue.”
Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Coalition, argued that Trump’s actions are un-American.
“This is not what America is about,” she said in her own statement. “We stand strongly against these hateful actions, and in solidarity with our Muslim and immigrant neighbors.”
But Lopez said entry into the United States is not a right.
“It’s a privilege, and it may be decided by the people who come here,” she said.
Lopez said a pause in immigration based on geography, however, might not be the best approach. Instead, she said, it should be focused on ideology. She said consular officers and other State Department employees must be trained to suss out foreigners who could pose a risk to Americans.
That means asking questions about people’s belief in Sharia law, Lopez said. She added that other questions could focus on whether visa applicants believe in equality of men and women under law.
Such vetting would not discriminate against Muslims but would ban those holding “allegiance to a different legal system” incompatible with America’s democratic pluralism, she said.
“It’s not about religion. It’s about Article VI of the Constitution,” she said, referring to the a provision that America’s governing document is the supreme law of the land.
Trump signed a second executive order Friday, calling for a “great rebuilding of the Armed Services of he United States.”
Rebuilding the military was a key plank in Trump’s platform during last year’s campaign. On Thursday, he told Fox News Channel Sean Hannity that the military takes precedence even over balancing the budget.

Donald J Trump Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting

Facebook ^ | December 29, 2017 

“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave.
We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.
This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.
I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Miracle That Is Ivanka Trump (PHOTOS)

Jewish Press ^ | Jan 29 2017 8 hours ago | Rabbi Lenny Oppenheimer 

Virtually every Rabbi started their sermon this past Shabbos with a similar theme, I am quite sure. The juxtaposition of the inauguration of President Trump with the verse from Parshat Shmos “And a new King arose” was too providential to ignore. No matter what one thinks, in this very divided country, about the new President, it is certainly an exciting time to be living, with great promise of change in the air.

In the Orthodox Jewish community, of course, there is particular excitement, given that, for the first time, Orthodox Jews have such proximity to the most powerful human on the planet (at least for the next few years). The long list includes Jason Greenblatt, special representative for international negotiations, David Friedman, Ambassador to Israel, and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is clearly Trump’s most trusted advisor and right hand man. The President has made it abundantly clear that he is very pro-Israel and intends to try to undo much of the damage that the Obama administration has been complicit in; Nikki Haley, his choice for UN Ambassador, could not have given a more pro-Israel speech at her confirmation. (It increasingly astonishes me how willfully blind the Jewish left is in accusing Trump of being anti-Semitic, of all things.) Surely this is yet another manifestation of the "Isaac Covenant" times that I have been writing about lately (Please see here for more on this important topic). She brings honor and respect to Torah and our way of life in a way unparalleled perhaps since Queen Esther
But, of course, the Orthodox Jew who is closest to him – and who we are most blessed to have as one of us – is his amazing daughter, Yael (Ivanka) Trump. Extraordinarily well-spoken, intelligent, beautiful and successful, she is a walking Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of G-d - the highest mitzvah a Jew can do) as she brings honor and respect to Torah and our way of life in a way unparalleled perhaps since Queen Esther.
Having written those words, I know that while hopefully most readers will agree with them, there are those who will feel that I have gone too far. “Kiddush Hashem?” they will exclaim. “Many of her clothing choices do not conform to Halachic standards of Tzniyus that we expect in our communities.” “She doesn’t cover her hair as a married woman should”. “She does not seem to be as careful about physical contact (negiah) with members of the opposite gender as we generally consider acceptable.” And this week, a new charge. She and Jared sought and got a “Hetter” (Rabbinic Ruling) allowing them to be driven in a car on Shabbos (Sabbath) to attend the inauguration festivities, including photo sessions and even going into a church. Most unfortunately, some even went as far as to question the validity of her conversion, given these deviations from the standards that they are accustomed to.
This attitude is most unfortunate, and (potentially) extremely harmful. It shows an ignorance of some basic Hilchos Geirus (Laws of Conversion) and – as is all too often the case among us – belies a lack of tolerance for those with other viewpoints and standards than our own.
This short article is not the place to go into this complex area of Halacha, but even a cursory look at Yoreh Deah 268 will show that – at the most basic level – what is required for a proper conversion is a deep desire to become a part of the Jewish People, to seek to share in their destiny with all of its difficulties, coupled with a complete acceptance of the obligatory nature of Halacha (Jewish Law) as presented to the potential candidate by the converting Rabbi and Bet Din, who themselves must be properly qualified to be Dayanim.
In the case of Ivanka, the Halachic community that she was introduced to by her potential husband (a graduate of the co-ed Modern Orthodox Frisch school) was the Modern Orthodox community of the upper East Side of Manhattan. The shul that she attended and wherein she received her training in Judaism and Halacha was Kehillath Jeshurun, led by Rabbi Haskel Lookstein. In that community, as opposed to many communities that I have been privileged to be part of, standards of tznius, negiah and hair covering are quite liberal; what is considered perfectly acceptable – and in fact modest and dignified – there, would be considered wholly unacceptable in most other Orthodox communities. Those are the standards that she was presented with, and it is on the basis of a completely sincere acceptance of those standards that the Bet Din converted her. My aim in this essay is not to discuss the propriety of the standards of that community; that is between them, their spiritual leaders, and the Almighty.[1]
Rather, I seek to make a simple point. When Ivanka undertook a commitment to follow Halacha upon completing her conversion, I have full confidence (more below) that she fully accepted on herself to follow all of the Halacha as presented to her by the teachers that she had. Given this, and the fact that she has, in fact, lived by those commitments, she is 100% fully Jewish. As such, she must be accepted with love by us as a Ger Tzedek (Righteous Convert), who we are commanded on twenty six separate occasions in the Torah to love and cherish – and not Heaven forbid to cause pain to – by questioning her integrity and Halachic validity.
Why am I so convinced that this was a proper Geirus? What about the questions raised above? Is it not well known that the Bais Din Harabbani HaGadol (BHG -The supreme Israeli Rabbinical Court) recently questioned Rabbi Lookstein’s conversions? My conviction is based on one important reason: The Conversion was done by the Manhattan chapter of the Beth Din of America under the GPS (Geirus Policies and Standards) system. Permit me to explain.
While it is true that Rabbi Lookstein has a long and distinguished career of not only being the Rabbi at KJ, but of also being the Head of the Ramaz school and a professor of Rabbinics at Yeshiva University, and is considered a Rabbi’s Rabbi, he has nevertheless taken certain public positions that were viewed as quite controversial over the years. As I have no desire, nor am I in any position, to judge him, I will not go into any detail here. Nevertheless, one position that he took is important in understanding this issue. That was his public opposition to the call of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) to have all of its member Rabbonim perform their conversion through the auspices of the GPS system.
The GPS system is, in my view, the single greatest achievement of the RCA. While all know of the infamous “Who is a Jew” question regarding Conservative and Reform conversions, it is less well known that there are serious problems within the “Orthodox” Rabbinate, where for a variety of unfortunate reasons, some Rabbis “convert” people who do not have a sincere Kabbalat (acceptance of) Mitzvot and thereby cause enormous problems. From the RCA website, “GPS was established to aid potential converts to Judaism, while at the same time diminishing thorny questions of personal status. For years, conversion had been performed in ad hoc fashion by local rabbis, but without detailed mutually agreed upon standards and procedures. While the vast majority of conversions were handled appropriately, some were not. As a result, in recent years even those who had fulfilled the halachic requirements were finding their conversions unfairly questioned and scrutinized - not just in Israel but in many Orthodox communities to which they or their children had moved.” To solve this problem, the GPS set up a system of regional Courts with policies and standards that will allows converts to be confident that their conversion will be recognized and prevents Rabbis from being put under pressure to convert people for ulterior motives.
For his own reasons (although Rabbi Lookstein was originally involved in the GPS formation) he is unhappy with what he sees as its rigidity, and has joined with some other RCA Rabbis in opposing it. From what I am able to gather, this was perhaps the main reason that the BHG did not want to accept his private, non-GPS conversions. Be that as it may, when it came to the very high profile conversion of Ivanka Trump, Rabbi Lookstein wisely chose to guide her conversion through the GPS system and the conversion was officiated by the Bet Din of America.
And that is good enough for me, as it should be for everyone in the Jewish community.
And that is why I think that all the “frum police” who are engaging in commenting and yenta-ing, whether on online forums such as Facebook and Twitter or at the shul Kiddush need to stop. They have no right to question or criticize her level of observance, or the choices that Jared and Ivanka have made, any more than any of us – who are so imperfect in our treatment of others, and lashon hara, and limmud hatorah, and tefilla – have a right to criticize anyone else.
For those interested, there certainly is halachic precedent, brought in the Bet Yosef YD 178:2 (and the Taz and Prisha and Darkei Teshuvah ad. loc.) for one who is קרוב למלכות – in a position of close proximity to the ruler, where they can avert trouble from the Jewish people – that certain Rabbinic prohibitions, e.g. being driven on Shabbos in a car, may be set aside if need be to maintain their position with the ruler. I do not know if this was the basis of the hetter they obtained, but one should be דן לכף זכות (assume the positive) that they asked the Shayla (Halachic Query) of a legitimate Rov who gave them this answer.
Certainly, the famous maxim אַל תָּדִין אֶת חֲבֵרְךָ עַד שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ לִמְקוֹמוֹ (Do not Judge another until you stand in their place - Avot 2:4) ought to apply. None of us can know what sorts of intense pressures from the media, family, and everyone around them they are living with every day, and what sorts of compromises they are constantly being pressured to make. And they have come through in a way that is making שם שמים מתאהב , making Hashem and Torah look beautiful to the world while living under that incredible spotlight.
One might wish that instead of getting a “Hetter” to attend the inaugural ball on Friday night and be driven home (ostensibly because of the pikuah nefesh situation caused by many who were expressing their fear of how Trump will destroy America by destroying what they could of a great American city) they would have stayed home and perhaps have the President drop by for a l’chaim. One certainly wishes that the spiritual and Torah aspirations of Jared and Ivanka will grow over time, leading them to take on more of the traditional ways of Halacha. I do not know what the future will bring, nor any more details about where “they are holding” right now. I take them at their word that their commitment to Halacha as they understand it is strong and deep.
One thing, however, I can predict with great certainty. None of the snarky comments and questions about the legitimacy of her conversion or the level of their observance will draw them closer to observance; they are far more likely to drive them in the other direction.
Let us celebrate this wonderful gift that Hashem has given us in having such attractive and prominent models of serious Jews in our time. My readers know that although I had many misgivings about Donald Trump as President, I think that if he can hold his negative side in check he is capable of being a great force for the good. It is well known that the person who can influence him best in this direction, is “our” Yael.
May she have the strength and courage to help her father stand up for all that is good in the very strange times in which we live, and may we come to properly appreciate Hashem’s putting her neshama in this very special place as she works for the betterment of the USA and Am Yisrael.
[1] I also will not discuss in this essay the difference between the “Very Modern Orthodox” community and “Open Orthodoxy”, which I consider to be beyond the pale, in that their deviations extend beyond mere levels of observance to fundamental matters of faith. I have discussed related matters elsewhere .

I would put her out front and center every day! 

AMEXIT: Bill Introduced In Congress To Remove The US From The United Nations!

Gateway Pundit ^ | Jan 23rd, 2017 6:12 pm | Ryan Saavedra 

The Republicans are wasting no time helping President Donald Trump deliver on his promises that he made will campaigning to be President of the United States.
Recently a bill was introduced by Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers called the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017 which is in response to his call earlier this month for the United States to sever all ties ties from the United Nations.

From The Business Insider:
The bill, titled the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017, was proposed on January 3. It is cosponsored by a handful of Republican lawmakers, including North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones, Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, Missouri Rep. Jason Smith, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, Tennessee Rep. John Duncan Jr., and Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz.
Biggs said in a statement on Monday that he cosponsored the bill because he believes that “our sovereignty as a country is harmed by our membership in this body.”
“We need to take a long look at our relationship with the United Nations to ensure that American interests are protected first and foremost,” Biggs said. “I’m grateful to Congressman Mike Rogers for introducing this legislation.”…
…The bill proposes barring the US from committing funds or troops to UN peacekeeping operations worldwide and stipulates that the UN must vacate property owned by the US government. It would repeal the 1973 Environment Program Participation Act, strip UN employees of diplomatic immunity in the US, and repeal the US’s membership and participation in the World Health Organization.

Breaking the law


The Trump Agenda


Check Bounced!


Trump Creates




Real Women


Meet Her!


The View




Black Community






Mass Deportations Loom: 7 Ways To Get Kicked Out Of America If You Are Here Illegally

SHTF Plan ^ | 1-29-2017 | Mac Slavo 

As of this writing there are reportedly scores of individuals being detained at airports across the country because they originate from countries on President Trump’s “ban list.” Though the ban is indefinite for refugees from war-torn Syria, the White House’s Executive Order stops short of permanently restricting access for those in other predominantly Muslim countries on the list. The purpose of the order based on its language is to ensure that the United States has extensive screening and biometric procedures in place prior to opening our borders again. The process, according to the order, should be completed within 120 days, something that seems to have been under reported by the mainstream media, likely in order to fuel further tensions such as the widespread protests we are seeing at international airports in the United States. Further, the Trump administration has now made it clear the holders of green cards are legal immigrants and will not be affected by the order.
The tensions we are witnessing today across the country will likely be raised significantly in coming days because in addition to the Executive Order banning immigration from certain countries, the Trump administration has also enacted an order to deal with illegal aliens who are already in the United States. It was a major position for the President in the run-up to the election and now Trump looks to be making good on his promise to deal with illegal immigration head on.
Dubbed Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, this Executive Order outlines numerous guidelines for dealing with undocumented immigrants who are in the United States illegally.
The order uses a sweeping definition for “criminal” activity, likely threatening millions of people with the real possibility of deportation...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Trump Bulldozer

The real shocker: Trump is a politician who delivers on his promises!

New York Post ^ | 28 Jan, 2017 | Michael Walsh 

Here we are, barely a week into the Trump administration, and half of the country that opposed him during the election is quivering with rage. He’s building the wall! He’s banning immigration from some Muslim countries! He’s wrecking ObamaCare! He’s sacking top officials at the State Department! He’s threatening sanctuary cities! What’s going on here?
It’s called: keeping his campaign promises.
The answer is simple: we’ve become so inured to politicians lying to us to get elected that we find it hard to believe that the new man in the White House actually meant what he said — and can’t wait to get on with it.
Not since the heyday of Ronald Reagan have the Democrats been in such shock and disarray. First, they — and their “never Trump” collaborators on the right — said he’d never get the nomination. When he did, they assured themselves there was no way he could beat the Hillary Clinton juggernaut so beloved of the media, the insulated superrich and the dependent class.
That all changed on Nov. 8. Of course, they’ve reacted to the upending of their fantasy world with petulance, threats, marches, actual violence and lawfare. Indeed, a few dead-enders calling themselves the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed suit last week charging the nation’s First Businessman with violations of the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which forbids US office holders from accepting things of value from foreigners.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump Roller Graphic By FReeper Smoothsailing.

Let’s Be Real: Obama ‘Barred’ Syrian Christian Refugees

The Stream ^ | 1/29/17 | Rachel Stolzfuss 

President Trump said he’s righting a wrong in ordering his administration to prioritize refugee applications from Christian minorities in Muslim countries Friday, but critics are declaring the move unfair and “un-American.” Let’s look at what the numbers have to say about the way Christian refugees were treated under President Obama.
The country admitted about the same number of Christian refugees as Muslim refugees in Fiscal Year 2016, according to Pew Research Center figures cited by The New York Times in an effort to refute Trump’s statement. About 38,000 Christian refugees were admitted compared to about 39,000 Muslims.
But this figure is a sum total of refugees worldwide, when Trump was clearly referring to specific Christian minority populations in the Middle East. The way it’s deployed in The New York Times report is incredibly misleading and entirely misses the point.
Previous administrations made it “almost impossible” for Syrian Christian refugees to gain admission, Trump told the Christian Broadcasting Network Friday, although they were “horribly treated” in their country.
“If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible,” he said. “I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them.”
The numbers regarding refugees from Syria in particular actually bolster Trump’s case. Obama admitted more than 12,000 Muslim refugees from Syria in Fiscal Year 2016, but fewer than 100 Christian refugees from the same country. Christians make up about 10 percent of the population in Syria, some 2.2 million people. Yet they only made up about one-half of one percent of Syrian refugees admitted that year.
Elliot Abrams tackles one explanation for the disproportionate numbers in a November opinion piece published by Newsweek, titled “The U.S. Bars Christians, Not Muslim, Refugees From Syria.” While some argue the dramatically low numbers are because Syrian Christians aren’t fleeing the country, or aren’t applying to move to the U.S., Abrams offers a simpler answer: “In effect, we make it almost impossible for Christian refugees to get here.”
“Is the title of this column an overstatement, suggesting that the United States ‘bars’ Christian refugees from Syria?” he writes. “Sure, in that we do not and could not legally ban Christian refugees any more than we could or should bar Muslim refugees. But when you have been running a refugee program for years, and you have accepted 10,612 Sunni refugees and 56 Christians, and it is obvious why and obvious how to fix it, and nothing is done to fix it — well, the results speak more loudly than speeches, laws, intentions or excuses.”
Another interesting fact The New York Times omitted from the Pew report is that 2016 was a record year for Muslims admitted into the country. Nearly half of the 85,000 refugees admitted into the country in fiscal year 2016 were Muslims, Pew reported, and half of those Muslims came from just two countries, one of which was Syria.

Trump SLAMS senators for ‘provoking WORLD WAR 3’ instead of dealing with immigration

The Daily Express ^ | 00:00, Mon, Jan 30, 2017 | UPDATED: 01:00, Mon, Jan 30, 2017 | Will Kirby 

Trump has hit back after two sentaors criticised his executive order on travel The President took to Twitter to criticise Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham after they released a statement warning about the potential counterproductive effects of Trump’s executive order on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

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

“The two Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Bill de Blasio Struggles Differing Trump’s Immigration Policy From Obama’s

Washington Free Beacon ^ | 1/29/17 | Jack Heretik 

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio had trouble differing President Donald Trump’s immigration policy with that of former President Barack Obama on Sunday.
CNN’s Jake Tapper raised the point that Obama and former President Jimmy Carter had both taken similar moves during their presidencies as Trump did with his executive order restricting immigration from certain countries with terrorism problems.
“Now there have been times in the nation’s history when detainees–I’m sorry, not detainees–when refugees or immigrants from a specific country were put on hold, were suspended,” Tapper said.
“Barack Obama did it with Iraqis for six months,” Tapper continued. “Jimmy Carter did it with Iranians during that hostage crisis. How is this different?”
“Well, I don’t know the details of those orders,” de Blasio said before criticizing Trump’s order.
De Blasio also criticized Trump’s executive order for what he called prioritizing non-Muslim immigration, but Tapper reminded him that it is for all religious minorities.
“Well, to be clear, what the executive order says is it provides for prioritization if people are of a religious minority in these countries and obviously they are majority Muslim countries, but theoretically, we don’t know how it’s going to be implemented,” Tapper said.
“Theoretically, that could be a Sufi Muslim could be considered a religious minority, a Shia Muslim could be considered a religious minority, no?” Tapper asked.
“Well, Jake, I understand that point, but I would be careful on that, the notion that there’s not a pattern of exception for individuals, that the only indication suggests bluntly non-Muslims should be very, very worrisome here,” de Blasio responded.

Early wins against Trump immigration order may not last

The Politico ^ | January 29, 2017 | Josh Gerstein and Seung Min Kim 

Immigrant rights groups scored a series of early court victories against President Donald Trump’s terrorism-focused executive order limiting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, but legal experts and administration officials said the impact of those initial legal victories could prove fleeting.
There is little doubt that the orders — issued by federal judges in New York, Boston, Alexandria, Va. and Seattle — helped bolster the resolve of anti-Trump protesters who flooded airports over the weekend and turned up by the thousands at the White House Sunday. The rulings may also sour public perceptions of Trump’s directive.
However, lawyers pressing the cases acknowledged that their courtroom wins so far may directly benefit no more than a couple of hundred people essentially caught in limbo when Trump signed his order Friday afternoon limiting travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The flurry of legal rulings Saturday and early Sunday do not appear to have disturbed the central thrust of Trump’s order. The directive suspends immigration and tourism from nationals of the seven countries and halts refugee admissions while stricter vetting protocols are implemented. Tens or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of people could be impacted by those changes.
“Obviously, this initial litigation is not on behalf of everyone who will be ultimately affected by the executive order, but it’s the first step in challenging the executive order,” said Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued and won an order in New York Saturday night blocking deportations of those held at airports nationwide.
“By sheer numbers it doesn’t affect as many people as would be affected by a lawsuit for people overseas, but I think it’s critically important because it’s the first challenge to the executive order. I think there will be broader challenges,” Gelernt added.
A Trump administration official who briefed reporters on the executive order Sunday night minimized the impact of the early court rulings.
“The executive order is prospective not retroactive. The purpose of the executive order is to prevent the issuance of new visas until such time as responsible vetting measures can be put in place,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The specific issue of travelers who were in transit during the EO’s [issuance] is by and large a one-time situation. ... It’s a non-sequitur.”
One Muslim-rights group, the Council on American Islamic Relations, said it planned a new federal lawsuit Monday charging that Trump’s order is unconstitutional because it amounts to thinly-veiled discrimination against Muslims.
That suit could face an uphill battle because courts have rarely accorded constitutional rights to foreigners outside the U.S. However, foreign citizens who are permanent U.S. residents generally have a stronger claim to recourse in the courts. In addition, legal experts say U.S. citizen relatives of foreigners could have legal standing to pursue a case charging religious discrimination.
Still, presidents have broad discretion over the nation's immigration and refugee policy. A 1952 immigration law gives the chief executive the power to bar "any class" of immigrants from the country if allowing them is deemed "detrimental to the interests of the United States."
For his part, Trump insisted in a new statement Sunday that he was not discriminating against those of the Islam faith.
“To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting,” Trump said. “This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.”
The administration also made clear for the first time Sunday night that green card holders would be presumptively exempt from the new policy, unless there was specific reason to suspect them of terrorist links. Carving out U.S. permanent residents could strengthen Trump’s legal hand to defend the policy in the courts.
While broad challenges to the Trump orders could take months or even years to play out in the courts, immigration advocates involved in the legal challenges already underway had differing views about the immediate impact of the various injunctions judges issued over the weekend.
While the New York judge’s order barred deportation of people held at airports following Trump’s directive, the order issued by two judges in Boston appeared to go further, requiring them to be released if they would have been under the policies in place prior to the new president’s executive action.
The discrepancies between different court orders were notable enough for some lawyers to advise green-card holders flying back to the United States to reroute their flights to Boston’s Logan Airport, since the federal ruling there was the most expansive of the injunctions issued Saturday.
“It’s broader in substance because it’s a prohibition on relying solely on the Trump executive order as the basis to detain or remove anyone who’s otherwise lawfully entitled to enter the U.S. The detention piece is new and the range of people is a little bit broader than in New York,” said Matthew Segal, a lawyer with the ACLU’s Massachusetts chapter. He said he believes the order issued there against detentions under the Trump order was nationwide in scope.
However, the broad federal injunction issued in Boston raised questions about whether airlines would have to allow immigrants, even from the affected countries, to board an airplane to the United States.
“Customs and Border Protection shall notify airlines that have flights arriving at Logan Airport of this order and the fact that individuals on these flights will not be detained or returned based solely on the basis of the Executive Order,” District Judge Allison Burroughs and Magistrate Judith Dein wrote.
Segal said lawyers arguing on behalf of immigrants urged that language as part of an effort to try to limit the disruption to travelers already on flights, as well as those trying to come to the U.S.
“There was some discussion in the hearing last night of making sure this order would be meaningful, so people could not only get off planes, but also get onto the plane in the first place,” Segal said. “We had been hearing from people throughout the day, folks who were essentially turned away at airports around the world…We wanted to make sure people could get onto these planes.”
Normally, airlines are reluctant to allow individuals to board flights if they’re likely to be rejected by immigration authorities at the other end. Large fines are sometimes assessed. It was unclear whether the Boston judges’ order would persuade airlines to allow, for example, the boarding of a green card holder from one of the seven countries listed in the Trump order, even if that person had not gone to a U.S. embassy or consulate for special additional screening.
Department of Homeland Security officials issued a statement Sunday night simultaneously asserting that they were complying with the court orders and that they were instructing airlines to deny boarding to affected travelers.
“Upon issuance of the court orders yesterday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immediately began taking steps to comply with the orders,” the DHS statement said. “We are also working closely with airline partners to prevent travelers who would not be granted entry under the executive orders from boarding international flights to the U.S. Therefore, we do not anticipate that further individuals traveling by air to the United States will be affected.”
Two narrower injunctions were also issued Saturday. One order from a judge in Seattle appeared to affect just two immigrants being held at the airport there, barring their removal from the U.S. at least through Friday.
The other order, issued by a judge in Alexandria, Va. Saturday night, blocked the deportation of green-card holders from Dulles Airport outside Washington. That order also required that Customs officials allow green-card holders to consult with lawyers.
Immigration lawyers, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and others complained that the access-to-counsel requirement was being ignored.
At Dulles Sunday, attorney Sara Dill said lawyers have been barred from meeting with detainees and that Customs agents refused to confirm whether anyone is being held at all. She said several attorneys have discussed filing a contempt order to compel cooperation.
Most green-card holders in detention at Dulles appeared to be released by late Saturday, although there were reports at least one was deported sometime over the weekend. Attorneys said Sunday afternoon that Customs and Border Protection had pledged to give green-card holders a list of pro bono lawyers and an opportunity to contact them.
But attorneys and advocates fanned out at airports across the country complained that Customs and Border Protection agents were not complying with the court injunctions — reporting instances of foreigners in San Francisco and New Yorkwho faced “imminent deportation." In some cases, Customs reversed course and said it would not remove the travelers from the United States.
Top administration and White House officials indicated to lawmakers and reporters that the immigrants ensnared by the executive order were all being properly processed and would be released. For instance, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said during a news conference in New York that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly assured him that 42 foreigners stuck at airports across the country would be processed and allowed to enter the United States.
But advocates said those instructions weren’t being translated to officers on the ground.
“The last 48 hours has been really full of chaos and the sense of the federal government completely deciding to not comply with the Constitution and on top of that, not providing guidance to the field with respect to arriving immigrants and refugees,” said Marielena Hincapie, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

Scientists Discover Metal That Conducts Electricity But Not Heat

UPI ^ | Jan. 26, 2017 | Brooks Hays 

"This material could be used to help stabilize temperature," said researcher Fan Yang.
Researchers have discovered a metal that fails to comply with the Wiedemann-Franz Law, the rule that suggests good conductors of electricity will also be good conductors of thermal energy.
Metallic vanadium dioxide easily carries an electric current, but fails to conduct heat as expected.
"This was a totally unexpected finding," Junqiao Wu, a professor of materials science and engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a news release. "It shows a drastic breakdown of a textbook law that has been known to be robust for conventional conductors. This discovery is of fundamental importance for understanding the basic electronic behavior of novel conductors."
The revelation -- detailed in the journal Science -- furthers the oddball reputation of metallic vanadium dioxide.
Previous studies showed the substance is an insulator at room temperature, but becomes a conductor once it reachers a temperature of 152 degrees Fahrenheit.
Researchers used electron scanning imagery to observe the movement of heat energy across the material. Modeling and lab experiments helped scientists determine how much heat was being carried by electrons and how much was being propagated by the vibration of the material's unique crystal lattices, or phonons.
"The electrons were moving in unison with each other, much like a fluid, instead of as individual particles like in normal metals," explained Wu. "For electrons, heat is a random motion. Normal metals transport heat efficiently because there are so many different possible microscopic configurations that the individual electrons can jump between. In contrast, the coordinated, marching-band-like motion of electrons in vanadium dioxide is detrimental to heat transfer as there are fewer configurations available for the electrons to hop randomly between."
Scientists were able to lower the threshold for vanadium dioxide's electric conductivity by mixing it with other materials, like metal tungsten. Mixing also encouraged the vanadium dioxide's electrons to carry heat more effectively.
"This material could be used to help stabilize temperature," said Fan Yang, a postdoctoral researcher at Berkeley Lab's Molecular Foundry. "By tuning its thermal conductivity, the material can efficiently and automatically dissipate heat in the hot summer because it will have high thermal conductivity, but prevent heat loss in the cold winter because of its low thermal conductivity at lower temperatures."

(From October 5, 2016) U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016 [Facts Against Fake News]

Pew Research ^ | October 5, 2016 | Phillip Connor 

A total of 38,901 Muslim refugees entered the U.S. in fiscal year 2016, making up almost half (46%) of the nearly 85,000 refugees who entered the country in that period, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center. That means the U.S. has admitted the highest number of Muslim refugees of any year since data on self-reported religious affiliations first became publicly available in 2002.

Almost the same number of Christian (37,521) as Muslim refugees were admitted in fiscal 2016, which ended Sept. 30. A slightly lower share of 2016’s refugees were Christian (44%) than Muslim, the first time that has happened since fiscal 2006, when a large number of Somali refugees entered the U.S.


The administration set the goal of resettling 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S. in the fiscal year. This goal was exceeded, and refugee status was given to 12,587 Syrians. Nearly all of them (99%) were Muslim and less than 1% were Christian. As a point of comparison, Pew Research Center estimated Syria’s religious composition to be 93% Muslim and 5% Christian in 2010.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Seven Inconvenient Facts About Trump’s Refugee Actions

Breitbart ^ | 01/29/17 | John Hayward 

The sober and logical reasons for President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees and visitors are rising above the noise after an evening of hysterical over-reactions and emotional meltdowns on the nation’s TV networks. Advocates of sane, secure immigration policy have long noted that it’s almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion of the refugee and immigration issues, because it’s been sentimentalized and politicized beyond the realm of rational thought.
This weekend brings them another superb example of media-magnified shrieking about fascism, bleating about “white nationalists,” howling about “religious persecution,” false invocations of the Constitution, and theatrical sobbing on behalf of the Statue of Liberty.
For readers who want to wallow in the emotion, examples can be found in this handy dossier of hysteria compiled by the Washington Post. But clear-eyed adults prefer to examine plain facts about Trump’s executive order:
1. It is NOT a “Muslim ban.” You will search the Executive Order in vain for mentions of Islam, or any other religion. By Sunday morning, the media began suffering acute attacks of honesty and writing headlines such as “Trump’s Latest Executive Order: Banning People From 7 Countries and More” (CNN) and printing the full text of the order.
Granted, CNN still slips the phrase “Muslim-majority countries” into every article about the order, including the post in which they reprinted its text in full, but CNN used the word “Muslim,” not Trump. The order applies to all citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It does not specify Muslims. The indefinite hold on Syrian refugees will affect Christians and Muslims alike.
As Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner points out, the largest Muslim-majority countries in the world are not named in the Executive Order.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...