Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
These 73 sitting Democrats voted to ban visas from some Muslim countries. That law still on the books!
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/these-73-sitting-democrats-voted-to-ban-visas-from-some-muslim-countries-that-law-still-exists?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=013017SeventyThreeDems&utm_campaign=crfb ^
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:
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
Amazon.com 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.
Amazon.com 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 wsj.com ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 cnn.com ...
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.
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 businessinsider.com ...
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.
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
freebeacon.com ^ | 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.
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 freebeacon.com ...
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.
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.
(snip)
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.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
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.Trump's NSC chief's son declares exactly what this is: A "Muslim ban," whatever weasel words his dad and Trump's minions come up with. https://t.co/ncdkXKGVSk— Terry Moran (@TerryMoran) January 28, 2017
Kessler then opened his mouthObama banned all refugees from Iraq. He enforced a de facto ban on Christians from Syria. Media didn't say a word. https://t.co/47jHl181eF— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 28, 2017
And proves that the press has been on its knees for 8 years@seanmdav @FDRLST two big differences: 1) pause was not announced at the time, done quietly. reporters only found out years later. 2) not based on religion.— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) January 28, 2017
@GlennKesslerWP @FDRLST In order to refute my point, you asserted journalistic incompetence under Obama, then begged the question. C'mon.— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 28, 2017
Now for the good part. For years I have said that liberals have zero long term memory, especially for actions by liberals."Reporters only found out years later" about what Obama admin did kind of proves the entire point of this exercise https://t.co/spsboFcnTC— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 28, 2017
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:
Politico: The 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 Examiner: Immigrants 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 Post: Trump’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.If Trump haters bristle at Trump's actions, they have one person to blame- barack obama. He made it all possible: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.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
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.
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 city-journal.org ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, sol...
