Trump sacks defiant acting attorney general

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Enough. Stop with the word games. You know where I stand on it and what I think. I've said it enough times.

I know precisely where you stand: you support a policy that's clearly discriminatory, and you think that it's legal to violate the First Amendment as long as the order that violates it doesn't explicitly state the name of a religion.

 

[Jainarayan]

I know precisely where you stand: you support a policy that's clearly discriminatory, and you think that it's legal to violate the First Amendment as long as the order that violates it doesn't explicitly state the name of a religion.

And... you can do precisely what about it, except badger me? Isn't what I believe or do not believe my right as an American under the Constitution, whether you like it or not?

Let's see... there's the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think we're done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And... you can do precisely what about it, except badger me?

Since getting you to see reason seems to be off the table, I can only hope to show the lurkers in the thread how ridiculous your position is and how shameful your defense of cruelty is. I don't expect to change your mind, but I might be able to use you to change the minds of others.

Frankly, I don't know what it was about this election. There's always been a spectrum of views, but people were generally consistent. This time, a whole bunch of people who were generally reasonable before now act as if they've lost their freakin' minds.

 

[oldbadger]

.................The fact that Trump spoke hundreds of times about banning muslims makes it pretty clear what his goal is (or at least what he wants it to be perceived as).......

May I respectfully ask you, did President Trump promise to carry out such measures while he campaigned and debated for the Presidency?

Was he elected?

Did he carry out his promise?

Did the USA get what the majority voted for?

Was he honest in all of the above?

I repeat, during WW11 the Brit Government turned any foreign nationals out of their homes if they were in view of trhe seas anywhere around the UK, and interned German and other nationalities until after the war.

Take any US protester, campaigning against such measures, and then, if, most sadly, that campaigner's wife, children, or siblings, or relatives, would be gunned down in a terrorist attack at a shop or school or church, what do you think they would support then?

 

[habiru]

So you buy the defense that the Nazi's were "just following orders" then, right?

Well, I do know that the majority of the Liberals are anti-establishment. And President Trump is anti-establishment. And it shows. The Establishment has been trying all of there best to get rid of these Liberals and or to control them. These Liberals are not anti-Establishment, or some of these protesters has been brainwashed by the Establishment's protesters into believing that President Trump is the problem. So they are trying to get the anti-Establishment protesters not to work with the newly elected President.
Like Gloria Steinem , she was an CIA plant. She went around as a anti-establishment activist and worked her way to become the head of the feminist movement. But she was planted so that they can have control of this movement and to know what they are thinking and persuaded them from thinking towards the other direction. George Soros and the Ford corporation are the Establishment. But why are they helping out with these anti-Establishment movements. Ford corporation had helped Gloria Steinem in the past.
i believes that they are trying to get rid of the anti-Establishment activist by planting activist into these organizations terrorizing the people. And so the people will not care when the Establishment takes them and lock them up into these Fusion centers that are all across the country. They know that President Trump will work with them, and so they are in a hurry to give these anti-establishment a bad name, so that while President Trump is in office, that they will never be heard. And all what President Trump will see them as people that were lying against him and he will not help them. Obama and Hillary are the Anti-Establishment busters.
Nazis had played with the people's mind as the way the Establishment are doing right now.

"In the 1960's, the elite media invented second-wave feminism as part of the elite agenda to dismantle civilization and create a New World Order."

Since writing these words last week, I have discovered that before she became a feminist leader, Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA spying on Marxist students in Europe and disrupting their meetings. She became a media darling due to her CIA connections. MS Magazine, which she edited for many years was indirectly funded by the CIA.

Steinem has tried to suppress this information, unearthed in the 1970's by a radical feminist group called "Red Stockings." In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA-connected friends, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas prevented Random House from publishing it in "Feminist Revolution." Nevertheless the story appeared in the "Village Voice" on May 21, 1979. Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society

$100 MILLION GIVEN TO BLM TO DESTROY AMERICA
Hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into organization dedicated to dividing America
$100 Million Given To BLM To Destroy America

WASHINGTON – Some of the richest men and women in the world met secretly recently in New York to conspire on using their vast wealth to bring the world’s population growth under control.

The meeting included some of the biggest names in the “billionaires club,” according to the London Times – Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.


Read more at Secret billionaire club seeks population control

CONVERSATION WITH OPRAH WINFREY BY MARIANNE SCHNALL

That's according to "The Modern Militia Movement," a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a government collective that identifies the warning signs of potential domestic terrorists for law enforcement communities.

"Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created," the Feb. 20 report reads. "Unemployment rates are high, as well as costs of living expenses. Additionally, President Elect Barrack [sic] Obama is seen as tight on gun control and many extremists fear that he will enact firearms confiscations."

MIAC is one of 58 so-called "fusion centers" nationwide that were created by the Department of Homeland Security, in part, to collect local intelligence that authorities can use to combat terrorism and related criminal activities. More than $254 million from fiscal years 2004-2007 went to state and local governments to support the fusion centers, according to the DHS Web site. 'Fusion Centers' Expand Criteria to Identify Militia Members

 

[Underhill]

How many have made attacks on America from any of those non-Muslim countries compared to radical Islamics? There is a history, you know.

I know you don't want to hear this, but we have a right and obligation to protect ourselves and our interests. We are under no obligation to suck up, cow-tow, or placate the rest of the world, despite the liberals' whining and hearts-a-bleeding. These immigrants will have their chance to come into the country when the waiting period is over. They are not being permanently banned or denied. The problem is this doesn't sit well with liberals. Too bad, suck it up.

Ignoring the needs of the rest of the world is a childish and irresponsible move. We have been protecting ourselves and have been largely successful.

I also think refusing to help those in need because you've allowed fear to overcome reason is cowardly.

 

[Underhill]

May I respectfully ask you, did President Trump promise to carry out such measures while he campaigned and debated for the Presidency?

Was he elected?

Did he carry out his promise?

Yep and it was unconstitutional then and now.

Did the USA get what the majority voted for?

No, Trump is president after all...

Was he honest in all of the above?

Almost never. But he has made a token gesture so he can claim he did what was promised. Banning muslims only from those countries where it is convenient points out the lie. If he truly believed muslims were the problem the ban would have been much broader.

I repeat, during WW11 the Brit Government turned any foreign nationals out of their homes if they were in view of trhe seas anywhere around the UK, and interned German and other nationalities until after the war.

And we are not at war.

Take any US protester, campaigning against such measures, and then, if, most sadly, that campaigner's wife, children, or siblings, or relatives, would be gunned down in a terrorist attack at a shop or school or church, what do you think they would support then?

Why do you insist on making this stuff personal? Decisions are not made based upon such things. If they were, murderers would be subject to mobs showing up with pitchforks and torches. We pass laws based upon reason and logic.

 

[Underhill]

Did you read the EO? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?_r=0 Search the words 'Christian', 'Islam' and 'Muslim'. You will not find them. And please do not say "but that's what he intended". Try that in a court of law and see how fast it's struck from the record as speculation.

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution

Right, so the law picks 7 countries, all of which are majority muslim, then instructs prioritization to minority religious groups, and you expect me and the courts to believe this is not discriminating based upon religion? Hogwash.

 

[esmith]

Right, so the law picks 7 countries, all of which are majority muslim, then instructs prioritization to minority religious groups, and you expect me and the courts to believe this is not discriminating based upon religion? Hogwash.

You are basing your argument on supposition. The EO does not specify anyone based on race or religion. You can imply all you want that this was the intent, however you have no legal grounds to stand on, thus it is not unconstitutional. Also be advised that the President has the legal right to deny entry into the United States of any alien. Non-citizens outside the borders of the US do not have any protection under the Constitution. You argument thus is invalid.

 

[Jainarayan]

Ignoring the needs of the rest of the world is a childish and irresponsible move. We have been protecting ourselves and have been largely successful.

I also think refusing to help those in need because you've allowed fear to overcome reason is cowardly.

That is the opinion you are entitled to. No one else has to hold the same opinion.

'Kthxbye.

 

[Jainarayan]

Right, so the law picks 7 countries, all of which are majority muslim, then instructs prioritization to minority religious groups, and you expect me and the courts to believe this is not discriminating based upon religion? Hogwash.

That is the opinion you are entitled to. No one else has to hold the same opinion.

'Kthxbye.

 

[Jainarayan]

Having had enough of this thread, I'm going to leave it with one thought:

Why are people so concerned, and getting their jimmies rustled over refugees from foreign countries when the US does little to nothing for wounded and homeless vets, homeless and abused children and elderly? We have far more American citizens in need than foreign refugees. Who will help these Americans in their own country? Where is the outcry and outrage for their plight?

 

[Underhill]

You are basing your argument on supposition. The EO does not specify anyone based on race or religion. You can imply all you want that this was the intent, however you have no legal grounds to stand on, thus it is not unconstitutional. Also be advised that the President has the legal right to deny entry into the United States of any alien. Non-citizens outside the borders of the US do not have any protection under the Constitution. You argument thus is invalid.

In the past the courts have agreed that our laws are subject to the constitution regardless of whom they impact.

But that isn't my problem. At the very least, any thinking person should be able to see that at best the order will have a modest impact considering the history of terrorism. So the president is making a temporary order, that will upset a third of the worlds citizens, to eliminate some of the threat from terrorist from a small percentage of likely countries terrorist could come from.

 

[Underhill]

Having had enough of this thread, I'm going to leave it with one thought:

Why are people so concerned, and getting their jimmies rustled over refugees from foreign countries when the US does little to nothing for wounded and homeless vets, homeless and abused children and elderly? We have far more American citizens in need than foreign refugees. Who will help these Americans in their own country? Where is the outcry and outrage for their plight?

Your post is a pointless diversion. We can do the right thing by refugees and take care of our own.

I would also point out that the number of homeless vets has gone down dramatically in the last 10 years, mainly due to the efforts of liberals pushing for reform. And I don't know anyone in favor of child and elder abuse.

 

[Underhill]

That is the opinion you are entitled to. No one else has to hold the same opinion.

'Kthxbye.

No they don't. They have the right to be wrong.

 

[habiru]

Having had enough of this thread, I'm going to leave it with one thought:

Why are people so concerned, and getting their jimmies rustled over refugees from foreign countries when the US does little to nothing for wounded and homeless vets, homeless and abused children and elderly? We have far more American citizens in need than foreign refugees. Who will help these Americans in their own country? Where is the outcry and outrage for their plight?

But how will Obama be able to sneak in radical Islamist into this country through those channels?

 

[4consideration]

Here's the thing: their international obligations would require them to admit virtually every refugee, but the statements by the Administration don't suggest that this is how the order would actually be implemented.

I don't think international obligations (or basic human decency obligations) actually require a country to admit virtually every person that claims to be a refugee, if their vetting process shows that refugee status is not real, and is only being claimed to get in by way of deception. I think there are limits when those claiming to be refugees actually intend harm, or present significant danger even if they would not describe themselves in that way.

The problems that I think this EO is addressing, even though I'm not positive what I think about it overall, are those people that have engaged in and/or will enact harm, based upon what we consider fair and decent treatment of people. I think a nation does have a right to set some limits on what it will allow and what it will not.

For example, an ISIS member, or sympathizer, who kills homosexuals, has engaged in stoning, and/or rapes women for not being completely covered and/or not living according to his beliefs, etc....if he believes that to be appropriate behavior according to his religion, if that behavior is what he thinks is the practicing of his religion...and he's been run out of the area by good Muslims...he could claim he is a refugee based upon his religion. Technically, that may be so.

In that case, as a US citizen, what I think is a priority (and what I care about more) is the protection of the homosexual/non-heterosexual people I love, the safety of the women to be able to live without fear for wearing western clothing, or being treated as "less-than" in matters of personal rights, law, etc. In that situation I care less about whether or not I'm viewed as being discriminatory, since I am hoping to discriminate against those that would commit murder and other forms of oppression in the name of their religion.

But...in fairness, should a Christian "refugee" reveal during the vetting process that their interpretation of their religion requires them kill homosexuals, or people of some other group, or similar thing that would disqualify someone of another religion -- and that is what they intend to do under the "practice" of their religion, I would expect them to be disallowed entry as well.

I also think it's fishy that it says the US would follow existing agreements as long as doing so "would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States." The Refugee Convention already allows states to expel refugees when they pose security threats and to take measures to protect their own security, so I'm worried that "security or welfare of the United States" is going to be interpreted very broadly in order to justify violating international agreements.

I think there's a difference in where were are focusing here. It seems this EO is seeking to implement changes where we can identify potential terrorists BEFORE they enter the US and do damage, so as to prevent their entry. I do not have a problem with that. I think that is good. Whether this is an effective approach to national security remains to be seen.

It may be the case that current refugee related international treaties allow for expulsion of those who do harm, but I don't think we have a duty to give an ok to travel here and/or let people in without subjecting them to our vetting process -- and that process will change as the intelligence regarding threat changes.

I do not favor a reactionary approach to security, and if the current intelligence indicates beginning the revising of the vetting process by correcting weaknesses regarding specific countries, I'm ok with that -- especially since I've seen some parts of congressional hearings about our vetting process for "running Syrian refugees" through our data systems and considering them vetted, while we'd put little to virtually no information in there, so of course nothing comes up. We need some corrections.