Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Over Refusal To Defend Executive Order

sally_q-_yatesdonald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedPresident Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates Monday night for “refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.”  As I stated on “Morning Joe” this morning, Trump clearly has the right to fire Yates.  Indeed, Yates’ action (and rationale) contradicts long-standing Justice Department policies on such issues.  Despite my personal opposition to this executive order, I believe that Yates was mistaken to take this action and that it does not serve the interests of justice to obstruct efforts to have this matter fully litigated before a court for independent review.

Yates stated in her letter below that she was not convinced that the law is lawful or right.  I certainly understand the concerns. Indeed, I share the view that the order was poorly executed and contradicts our values as a nation.  However, Yates indicates that the Office of Legal Counsel found that the order was lawful (something that Yates dismisses).  The OLC itself will not confirm that it signed off on the order. Any OLC view is not controlling the Attorney General but it does show that lawyers can disagree on the issue.  As I have previously stated, there legitimate arguments under the constitution and federal statutes that can be made by challengers.  However, I still believe that the existing precedent favor the Administration both in terms of the alleged unconstitutionality and the alleged unlawfulness of the order.  That does not mean that parts of the order could not be struck down, but that there are compelling arguments on both sides.  That is not normally the basis for an attorney general to order all Justice Department employees not to assist that President of the United States.
It is curious that Yates is taking this position after the Justice Department argued for the last eight years, and as recently as 2016, that President Obama had sweeping authority over immigration. Indeed, this was the department that argued that federal courts should not second guess a president on immigration decisions even when he was accused of negating federal law.  It is also the Justice Department that defended aspects of the alleged “torture program” under the Bush Administration.  Yet, Yates is saying that this issue requires her to order an entire department to refuse to help a sitting president?  What is missing is a discernible standard for taking such an extreme action.  Yates’ letter does little to answer that question.
I was also struck by this passage:  “Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose.”  That appears to be a reference to Trump’s campaign statements and the recent statements of Rudy Giuliani that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban.”  The Justice Department has long maintained (including in cases that I litigated) that the alleged motivation behind laws is entirely immaterial and that courts should not review the legality of a law based on speculation as to motive.  Indeed, this is a particularly bad case for such a change.  It is possible that Trump desired a Muslim ban but that the drafters counteracted that desire. This is in fact not a Muslim ban.  It does not ban most Muslims from entry.  There was therefore a very good reason why the OLC would not consider those statements.
In the end, I believe that justice is served by both sides presenting these arguments fully and zealously before a court.  I disagree with Yates’ decision and her underlying rationale. Yates made it difficult not to fire her.  That is what makes this less of a “massacre” and more of a suicide.
Here is the letter:

On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

157 thoughts on “Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Over Refusal To Defend Executive Order”

    1. Translate stiffed into something meaning ful besides Bobby Benson is pouting?

        1. I haven’t read a newspaper since 1997 but if that’s where you get your stuff no wonder your incapable of articulating an answer. So. lap dog of the white identify left who programmed you today?

            1. But you keep doing it anyway don’t you…. fish? Now that IS ignorant. But it still doesn’t excuse you from failing to present any support for your…. sorry… for your handlers comments.

    2. If “scientists” and “researchers” are too stupid to understand it’s not a travel ban, then they’re too stupid to advance scientific research. It’s a 90 day immigration hiatus/120 day halt in the inflow of refugees.

      But if American citizens need to go to any of those countries on that list (for the most part, a stupid need, but I’ll play along) they’ll just experience stricter vetting when they return.

  1. 136 students here from 6 of those 7 countries. 96 of those from Iran. Currently advised not to leave the USA. Not even for a field trip to Canada.

    1. David Benson – who the devil would want to take a field trip to Canada this time of year. 😉

      1. The answer is obvious to all but the…..

        Anybody who skis for starters. to explain skiing is one of those activities that doesn’t happen by talking about it but by….skiing. Very practical and objective it turns dreams into reality and doesn’t require another mustic world where whim become snow covered mountains. From there the opportunities multiiply. It does require skis sitting on your ass doesn’t work.

        1. Michael Aarethun – I went skiing once. Got the skis on and took off directly for the ski rack, where I imprinted my face with the clips on the rack. So … I took off the skis, got my money back and gave up skiing for life. God taught me a severe lesson. 🙂

          1. I didnt’ get a choice but to keep going. My training came from the French Swiss Ski College in Blowing Rock NC paid for by the US Army as a prelude to cross country and mountaineering skiing. With two european languages I was set to try for an assignment in Europe. Ended up in Central and South America but not in ski country. Still I was able to get my one offspring started and added scuba but I hear rumors of skydiving. I do hope they are just rumors. One crazy in the family is enough and I hold that spot.
            Now it’s just sailing and diving … the good news is old bones don’t suit freezing weather… and that doesn’t occure where I live. I got off the motorcycles too. now I just chase redheads. That’s hard to do in Latin America but safer…. Viva La Guapas!

      2. Field trip doesn’t necessarily mean to the outdoors, although there is plenty for various research specialists to do this time of year.

        1. But sitting on your ass complaining is soooo much easier …..try doing something for a change.

        2. David Benson – I suppose you could always join in the annual winter moose count.

    2. Good advice… Match week for medical residents is coming up soon and this ban is creating havoc in those programs, too.

      1. Have you turned this into hard data and brought it to the attention of Immigration or DHS or …… as something that might need attention. I’m thinking that such activities would not be expeced in Jan/Feb but would be thought about for Aug and Sept.

        Or are you going to sit and use it as an opportunity for a demonstration?

        1. Squeeky – I would love to see the decor and menu when it is finished. 😉

  2. Forgive me if I find it laughable that an AG, acting or not, who was a part of an Administration with the worst record before the Supreme Court, in modern times, suddenly asserts herself to be an expert.

    1. i wondered if anyone would recognize the name similarity . it’s great to find educated literate people !

    1. I thought that was Pink Floyd but I’m Spanish speaker. USB or Peninsulare?

  3. I wonder if Yates remembers this guy?

    1993 WTC bombing. Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Raman planned in a Mosque.

    Abdel-Rahman was issued a tourist visa to visit the United States by the consul of the United States Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, despite his name being listed on a U.S. State Department terrorist watch list. Rahman entered the United States in July 1990 via Saudi Arabia, Peshawar, and Sudan. The State Department revoked his tourist visa on 17 November. Despite this, in April 1991, he obtained a green card from the Immigration and Naturalization Services office in Newark, New Jersey.

    Formerly a resident of New York City, Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy, which requires only that a crime be planned, not that it necessarily be attempted. His prosecution grew out of investigations of the World Trade Center 1993 bombings.
    Abdel-Rahman was accused of being the leader of Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (also known as “The Islamic Group”), a militant Islamist movement in Egypt that is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Egyptian governments. The group is responsible for many acts of violence, including the November 1997 Luxor massacre, in which 58 foreign tourists and four Egyptians were killed.

  4. “The Justice Department argued for the last eight years, and as recently as 2016, that President Obama had sweeping authority over immigration. Indeed, this was the department that argued that federal courts should not second guess a president on immigration decisions.”

    Extremely well said.

    Thank you.

  5. Yates is a good example of why the D.C. stables need to be completely cleaned out.

    Maybe she can move to NYC and defend illegals who drive drunk and kill people.
    DeBlaso needs her help!

    1. Yates has freed herself from the impending doom of the kleptocracy. She knew what was coming and set herself free.

      1. Good! More of them should do so. No one’s stopping them and the door can be opened with kicking them in the ass. She can trundle on over to the white identity extreme left and go to work for Soros with the rest of the regressives. GREAT IDEAT THANKS!

  6. This rather reminds me of the county clerk who refused to sign off on gay marriage licenses…

    1. Great analogy, Karen. From both ends of the spectrum..civil servants not serving the voters.

      1. Actually, not that great. That county clerk in Kentucky was an elected official, and she believed she was serving her voters. That is, the people in her county who elected her, not people driving in from other counties or even from out of state to get a marriage license. Believe it or not, there isn’t any detectable demand from same sex couples for marriage licenses in Rowan county, Kentucky.

        And it appears she very likely was serving her voters. Matt Bevin, the Republican candidate for governor, came out in support of her right to conscience. He was elected later that year by a good margin. And one of his first acts was to sign an executive order removing the county clerk’s name, and the reference to the county clerk’s office, from the marriage license form. Which was the religious accommodation the clerk wanted and it’s reasonable.

        And it wasn’t from “both sides” as Kim Davis, the county clerk, is a Democrat like Yates.

  7. “It is curious that Yates is taking this position after the Justice Department argued for the last eight years, and as recently as 2016, that President Obama had sweeping authority over immigration.”

    I am curious if Ms Yates had a similar problem, and took a similar stand, when President Obama blocked immigration from the same countries, many times in the past, and for longer periods of time. Or is it just when a Republican is doing it?

    If she is uninterested in working with the POTUS, or has a conscientious objection, then of course she should be replaced.

    It does not matter if Trump wanted a Muslim ban. The law was crafted to be legal. Many of us “want” to do things we are not legally allowed to do, so our lawyers craft contracts or legislation or other agreements that arelegal. Ask any divorcee what she wished her divorce decree dictated, and I’ll bet a little bitty guillotine would have been involved in some cases. Does that invalidate her legal divorce decree?

    And as for the refugee crisis, I found this article, written from a GWOT Veteran’s perspective, to be very moving and sums up my own conflicted view:

    http://www.unprecedentedmediocrity.com/what-gwot-veterans-really-think-about-middle-eastern-refugees/

      1. Thank you, Squeeky. It spoke to my own divided opinion on the problem. Those pics of injured, frighten children absolutely kill me. But I’m not blind to the shenanigans that the grown ups have been up to in their country. Except for the innocent kids, there is no black and white in Syria, just shades of gray.

        You know, ISIS trainees can be terrorists, too, if their camps get blown up in the war and they find themselves displaced. They could literally be refugees and terrorists at the same time.

        1. Aren’t they all terrorists in waiting when they subscribe to an ideology totally anathemic to Western culture and values? Won’t frustration build no matter what we do for them save changing to meet their 12th Century sense of right and wrong. Mixing cultures rarely works unless assimilation is required. Ask the Incas …. oh they aren’t around anymore.

          1. 7th century, not twelth. That’s what salafi means; “pious ancestor.” It refers to the first three generation of Muslims who, according to Muhammad, were the best Muslims.

    1. He won’t have to. He gets to pick the next three or four Supremes. How they control their subordinate courts is up to them.

    2. Not necessarily. The whole point of the exercise is determine what part of the swamp needs draining and each step of the way do something postive to clean up the mess from what’s his name. Like the very first Judge who pared away the BS and made a valid ruling on current visa holders . They were home for supper while the anti-testers were still playing with themselves.

  8. Three points:
    1. Trump had little choice but to fire Yates although he did do in a way that makes him seem (or clarifies that he is) petulant and vindictive.
    2. Trump’s refusal to consult with his Cabinet and using Congressional Staff forbidding them to inform their bosses crosses the line of the three branches of government.
    3. This is a Muslim Ban despite how it was reworded as Giuliani proudly takes credit for. Maybe it was as simple as Yates recognizing it for what it was and standing on principal.

    Okay two more things.

    4. The argument that it isn’t a Muslim Ban because it doesn’t include more nations is moot because they’ve given themselves the right to expand it. They just haven’t got to the rest yet.
    5. The concern that it doesn’t affect Muslim countries where Trump is doing business is worthy of more examination.

    1. Enigma

      If you really believe that Congressional staff was involved without any knowledge whatsoever of the CongressCritters for whom they work, I have a bridge to sell you. The CongressCritters’ denial of knowledge of the involvement of their staff in drafting the Executive Order was very likely nothing more than them running for cover. They had to have known something about this arrangement, even if they did not know the details. Otherwise the staffers would be fired in a New York minute. Congressional staff does do this kind of thing without at least tacit consent from their boss.

        1. Well, I’m sure glad Democrats and Quasi-White Baby Jesus Obama never lied! And I’m sure glad when he did lie, the MSM and “Justice Dept” held his feat to the fire………….NOT!

          Google: “Obama peace prize” then “Libya rubble” and “Syria rubble” (images for the last two).

    2. The fact that nothing you just said is even remotely true makes your entire comment null and void.
      FFS.

      1. Amen! What a bunch of drivel! Instead of just regurgitating talking DNC talking points, Why doesn’t enigmainblack actually do some research? Perhaps, make a list of all Muslim countries NOT affected by the ban, and then check each one of them for a Trump investment. Then, come back to us with the list.

        Because my bet is that the vast majority of those countries have zippo Trump investment in them.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Saudi Arabia is interestingly absent from the list last I saw.

          Who is ISIS if not funded by and peopled in large part with Saudi extremists?

          ” Private individuals in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states friendly to the United States are the chief source of funding for al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups, according to leaked US diplomatic cables.”

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8182847/Wikileaks-Saudis-chief-funders-of-al-Qaeda.html

          Since we are a major Saudi oil importer, does that mean WE are funding ISIS?

          http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

          1. Thanks for the link, Prairie Rose.
            One part of the article that stood out was that there was “no accusation of Saudi government officials involved in funding terrorists.
            There are clearly “Saudi jihadists”, but to date I have not seen strong evidence that the Saudi government supports Al Qaeuda.
            Saudi Arabia tossed Bin Laden out of their country in 1991, and revoked his Saudi citizenship.

            1. Yes, I have read that, too. Either Frankenstein has lost control of his monster or the funding is allowed through with a wink. Too cynical?

              1. Prairie Rose….
                I don’t think it’s too cynical.
                I would note that the U.K. Telegraph article is over 6 years old, and the Wikileaks cables quoted are 7 years old.
                I don’t know to what degree the Saudi governmeny currently “overlooks” Saudi citizens supporting ISIS.
                Years ago, the attitude of the Saudi goverment seemed to be “we don’t care what you do, just don’t do it in Saudi Arabia”.
                But attacks by Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliates against Saudi Arabia itself seemed to alter their feelings about jihadists.
                I’d like to see a current estimate of the amount of financial support some Saudi citizens provide to jihadists.
                To date, I haven’t seen those estimates

                1. “President Trump’s ban against letting people from seven mostly Muslim countries enter the United States looks to many like a thinly concealed bias against a religion, but it also is a troubling sign that Trump doesn’t have the nerve to challenge the false terrorism narrative demanded by Israel and Saudi Arabia.

                  The Israeli-Saudi narrative, which is repeated endlessly inside Official Washington, is that Iran is the principal sponsor of terrorism when that dubious honor clearly falls to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Sunni-led Muslim states, including Pakistan, nations that did not make Trump’s list.

                  The evidence of who is funding and supporting most of the world’s terrorism is overwhelming. All major terrorist groups that have bedeviled the United States and the West over the past couple of decades – from Al Qaeda to the Taliban to Islamic State – can trace their roots back to Sunni-led countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Qatar…”

                  http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/65289.html#more-65289

                  1. Au contraire he took the Obama problem of using religion and put it right up front and in everyone’s face so it had to be taken care of along with the other needed fixes. You from Oregon or Colorado?

                    1. Michael,

                      Would you please explain what you are saying. Please do not use personal attacks. Let’s have an honest discussion!

    3. Enigma – The fact that nothing you just said is even remotely true makes your entire comment null and void.
      FFS.

        1. You didn’t really make any points. You stated some unbacked conclusion, and then failed to make much of an argument. For example, have you listed the Muslim countries not affected by the ban, and then linked each of them to Trump Investments? NO? Then you have not “made” a point, you just “repeated” a DNC talking point.

          Your form of argumentation is to say a conclusory “phrase”, and then when called on it, to reiterate the “phrase” as if you were actually arguing. But you aren’t. Remember the “mass incarceration” discussion we had? And how you avoided any actual argumentation?

          Sooo, here is how you can proceed if you actually want to argue, as opposed to just blathering out phrases:

          1. Define what a Muslim ban is;
          2. Discuss how many Muslims in the world are being “banned.”
          3. Develop a percentage maybe.
          4. Discuss the temporary nature of the ban.

          That’s a start for you.

          Or, you can just run around waving your hands in the air, and hollering “Muslim ban!” “Muslim ban!” like an hysterical idiot.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. So I have to meet your criteria for it to be a Muslim ban? How about I just take the word of Trump and Guiliani. I note you didn’t say anything about a preference for Christians which is just as Unconstitutional.
            To your points, it’s temporary but they reserved the right to continue it. As to the percentage, they reserved the right to expand it. A Muslim ban is one that imposes a ban based on their religion. Deny all you like, It is what it is.

            1. enigma,

              How many Muslims have lawfully entered the U.S. since the ban was put in effect? How many were rejected?

              Given refugee preference to those being savagely persecuted because of their religion makes sense to most critical thinkers. To point out that they are Christians does not negate the fact that they are living in countries where they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

              Kind of like “shit on a shingle”. If you only acknowledge the title, you’ll never get to the meat.

            2. Like I said above, you will just repeat the same old conclusion/opinion as if you actually making an argument. Perhaps you are fooling yourself, but I think most others see it for what it is. Sheeeesh! And I even took the time to line out for you how to factually back up your opinion.

              As far as the Christians, could you copy and paste out of the Executive Order the exact language that has your panties in a wad??? That way we can both be arguing the same thing. Or at least I can. You will probably just keep repeating the DNC talking points.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

            3. I keep hearing people throwing the phrase unconstitutional around but I would like to be told what article of the Constitution is violated, either be reference to the text or case law.
              Some of the Executive Order may be in Conflict with Statutes but that is to be determined and is separate and apart from being unconstitutional.

              I suspect people use the term in an attempt to foreclose further discussion. Are you saying that if tomorrow a Christian sect started and it required all of its members to swear to dedicate their lives to the destruction of the United States, that we could not exclude them from entry?
              As Justice Jackson so eloquently put it: “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

              1. One of the problems the swamp draining is correcting is the use of religion was a hall mark of the former regime. Among others. I am happy to see it high on the agenda for comment, discussion, and correction.

                meanwhile the pretender is fluttering his putter at who knows what delights are to be found for some one with golf size balls. Say did he leave Michelle Antoinette in Phoenix?

              2. 1st Amendment – The First Amendment[edit]
                The first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” The two parts, known as the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause” respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the “separation of church and state” doctrine.[35] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America’s doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one’s will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion – financial or physical – must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.[36]

                1. Enigma – the EO is addressing refugees. Refugee status can be determined (among other factors) by whether the claimant is a minority oppressed religion in the country they are fleeing. It’s part of US law.
                  Thanks for playing, though.

                    1. Once again, you have an OPINION, and come heck or high water, you are going to keep repeating it no matter how out of whack it is with either the facts, or the law. It’s your story, and you’re sticking to it! Maybe you should change your name from enigmainblack to brokenrecordinblack. Cause it ain’t no enigma as to how you are going to respond – – – you are just going to repeat your opinion. Like a broken record.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                2. Nice but it lacked a reason to be repeated. So do you agree or don’t agree that the use of religion in the matter of immigration as put ini place and used by the previous regime should or should not be brought to the fore, spotlighted, and changed sooner or is it later? That list of seven as it happens is the Obama list of the most critical areas and includes – besides Muslims and Islamics a great many religious minorities that Kerry and Company didn’t much care about and their 50,000 plus to 55 ratio was just a little bit more out of whack than could be excused in fact I would call it political bigotry.

                  I would have thought you would be in favor of having it addressed and corrected swiftly but simply quoting (a good thing) one part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights does not real state any particular goal.

                  1. Then you should also look at Article I and Article II they all go together no Marischino Munching allowed.

                3. Which religious is being established? Which religion is the free exercise thereof being prohibited?

                  The answer to both is NONE.

            4. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional with placing persecuted religious minorities at the head of the refugee line. So, yes, Trump is entirely correct about preferring Christians to Sunni Muslims. Sunnis are the majority, and are not persecuted, in IS controlled areas.

              Trump can not prefer Christians to Yazidis, who have it even worse, or Bahais, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a few other tiny sects. But the overwhelming number of people who per our immigration and refugee law have a legitimate claim to preferential treatment among the Syrian refugees are Christian and Yazidi.

              http://www.hias.org/sites/default/files/lautenberg_amendment_backgrounder.pdf

              “What is the Lautenberg Amendment?

              The Lautenberg Amendment, originally enacted as part of the 1990 Foreign Operations
              Appropriations Bill, established a presumption of eligibility for refugee status for certain
              categories of people from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and Southeast Asia seeking to resettle in the United States.

              Today, the Lautenberg Amendment mostly serves to facilitate the resettlement of Jews, Christians, Baha’is, and other religious minorities fleeing Iran, which was added to the Lautenberg Amendment in 2004, while it continues to cover religious minorities
              from the FSU.

              Under a program established by the U.S. State Department and negotiated with the government of Austria, members of certain Iranian non-Muslim religious minority groups are eligible to receive visas to travel to Austria, where they can be safe while the U.S. government processes their applications for refugee resettlement. This arrangement is a lifeline for Iranian religious minorities, since the United States has no embassy in Iran, and cannot interview applicants there…”

              I am constantly amazed how little people who keep going on about this fictional “Muslim Ban” know about what qualifies a person as a refugee. Although if someone is using the term “Muslim Ban” as if Trump’s EO establishes one, then I suppose I should know I’m dealing with someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. If someone is being persecuted for a variety of reasons then under US law you may have a valid claim to come to the US as a refugee. And one of those categories is a persecuted religious minority.

              I suppose you’re stunned, STUNNED!, to find out that for over a decade we’ve had a program to do what Trump is proposing. To prefer non-Muslim refugees over Muslim refugees from Iran.

              No, that’s not quite correct. Muslim refugees may have had other grounds to claim refugee status. But not religious grounds, unlike persecuted religious minorities.

              Here’s another stunner. This amendment used to have to be reauthorized annually. And the last president to reauthorize it was Barack Obama. I believe he even expanded it to cover other religious minorities.

              So when he went on TV and said words to the effect that their is no religious test for refugees, he was flat lying. There is a religious test, and he knew it because he reauthorized this amendment. Which no longer needs to be reauthorized annually because Barack Obama signed it into permanent law before he left office. But then he knew he could get away with it. Because he know you haven’t been paying attention. And now you are convinced this decades old program (and other laws that have long been part of our immigration and refugee laws that give preference to members of some religions over others) is unconstitutional. When that just not true.

        2. I missed that post would you mind repeating them and the back up to the other previous ones …missed that too.

          1. The post was from Foxtrot Foxtrot Sierra. Here’s mine that preceded it:

            Three points:
            1. Trump had little choice but to fire Yates although he did do in a way that makes him seem (or clarifies that he is) petulant and vindictive.
            2. Trump’s refusal to consult with his Cabinet and using Congressional Staff forbidding them to inform their bosses crosses the line of the three branches of government.
            3. This is a Muslim Ban despite how it was reworded as Giuliani proudly takes credit for. Maybe it was as simple as Yates recognizing it for what it was and standing on principal.

            Okay two more things.

            4. The argument that it isn’t a Muslim Ban because it doesn’t include more nations is moot because they’ve given themselves the right to expand it. They just haven’t got to the rest yet.
            5. The concern that it doesn’t affect Muslim countries where Trump is doing business is worthy of more examination.

            1. Yes but where’s the facts to back that up. FFS did that one used to go by FFA or is it like a collective chain thing? Where’s that posters facts or are you just trying to carry that one’s water. No problem with the bucket, no holes just nothing in it.

    4. And Yates isn’t the first AG to say “no” to a president, nor the first to be fired for doing so. I wonder how the administration is doing without someone to sign off on FISA warrants?

        1. That really doesn’t address what ever. No debate points there. Just think you might end up the only….. working in the white identity collective. Starting to look that way. Not to be insulting but appearances do matter especially where the new owners of the Democrat Party are concerned.

      1. Fine…but every days delay is tick tick tick it’s nuke time! Not to mention the new movement of former Democrats into a new party that is already talking coalition with the Constitutional Center.

        I haven’t turned on the news did the bomb go off yet?

      2. As AG it’s stupid to say “no” when you admit, as Yates did, that she didn’t do so because she considered the EO unconstitutional or unlawful. She did it on policy grounds. She didn’t think it was “just or wise.”

        I’m not aware of any AG, acting or otherwise, fired for this sort of stupidity. And lack of integrity. If you work for a President and disagree with policy, the only honorable course of action is to suck it up and execute the policy, as long as you believe it is constitutional and legal. After all, as AG you’re the government’s lawyer. Lawyers often provide legal services to clients they find disagreeable. Even unlikable.

        Or, resign, if it’s that important to you. But Yates couldn’t bring herself to act with integrity. Instead she did what an acting AG can not do. She did more than say “no.” She said “no” and ordered an entire federal department to disobey a presidential EO.

        We had a word for this in the Navy. It’s called mutiny.

    5. Enigma – not too long ago, the thought of a terrorist attack on our soil was unbelievable. Now we’ve become jaded to it.

      Culled from Wikipedia:

      10/10/2000 – 3 pro-Palestinian Arab men hurled a molotov cocktail at a synagogue in NY
      10/13/2000 – Another synagogue in NY firebombed
      9/11 – 2977 killed and more than 6,000 injured – Al Qaeda
      12/22/2001 – failed shoe bomber – Al Qaeda
      5/8/2002 – Abdullah al-Muhajir was arrested for planning to use a radiological bomb
      7/4/2002 – 2 killed and 4 wounded -Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, killed two Israelis and wounds four others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport.
      10/2002 – 10 killed and 3 wounded – Beltway Sniper radicalized jihadist John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo
      3/19/2003 – Pakistani American Iyman Faris arrested for plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge
      3/5/2006 – 9 injured – Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill to “avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world”
      7/28/2006 – 1 killed and 5 wounded – Pakistani American Naveed Afzal Haq, killed one woman and shoots five others at the Jewish Federation building in Seattle. During the shooting, Haq told a 911 dispatcher that he was angry with American foreign policy in the Middle East.
      3/6/2008 – A homemade bomb damaged an Armed Forces Recruiting Office in Times Square. FBI revealed that ammunition used for the bomb is the same as is used in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones.
      6/1/2009 – 1 killed and 1 wounded – Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad shot and killed one military recruiter and seriously wounded another at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army/Navy Career Center. Muhammad converted to Islam and visited Yemen for sixteen months where he spent time in prison and became radicalized. Muhammad, said he was part of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and was upset over the U.S. Army’s murder of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, like the Kandahar massacre and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
      11/5/2009 – 13 killed 32 wounded – Ford Hood – Nidal Malik Hasan waged jihad, saying he wanted to fight “illegal and immoral aggression against Muslims”.
      12/25/2009 – 2 injured – Underwear Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253 using plastic explosives sewn into his underwear while on route from Amsterdam to Detroit.
      5/1/2010 – Failed car bombing – Faisal Shahzad ignited an explosive in Times Square. The bomb failed to go off, and he was later arrested on a flight leaving for Dubai.
      10/2010 – Farooque Ahmed conspired with law enforcement officials posing as al-Qaeda to bomb Arlington Cemetery, the Pentagon City subway station, Crystal City subway station, and Court House subway station.
      10/29/2010 – Two plastic explosive bombs were discovered on two cargo planes destined for two synagogues in Chicago. They were discovered at East Midlands Airport and Dubai International Airport while en route. Al Qaeda.
      10 and 11/2010 – Ethiopian Yonathan Melaku A series of shootings took place at the five military buildings including the National Museum of the Marine Corps and the Pentagon. He also attempted to bomb and damage Arlington National Cemetery. He wanted Americans to be afraid of supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
      11/25/2010 – Mohamed Osman Mohamud attempted to detonate what he thought was a car bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
      4/25/2013 – 5 killed, 280 killed/maimed, including children – Boston Massacre – Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, in retaliation for our wars in the Middle East
      2014 – 4 killed – Ali Muhammad Brown shot and killed 4 people in a series of terrorism related killings in the states of Washington and New Jersey.
      9/24/2014 – 1 killed, 1 wounded – Vaughan Foods beheading incident: Alton Alexander Nolen aka “Jah’Keem Yisrael” attacked two employees at Vaughan Foods, beheading one and stabbing the other before being shot and injured by Vaughan Foods’ Chief Operating Officer.
      10/23/2014 – 3 injured – New York City hatchet attack: Muslim convert Zale Thompson injured two New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers, once critically at a Queens, New York City shopping district by striking them with a hatchet. Four officers were posing for a photograph when Thompson charged them. The police opened fire killing Thompson and injuring a civilian. Thompson who converted to Islam 2 years before the attack posted “anti-government, anti-Western, anti-white” messages online.
      5/3/2015 – 1 injured – Curtis Culwell Center attack: Two gunmen opened fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center during an art exhibit hosted by an anti-Muslim group called the American Freedom Defense Initiative in Garland, Texas. The center was hosting a contest for cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Both gunmen were killed by police. A Garland Independent School District (ISD) police officer was injured by a shot to the ankle but survived. The attackers, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, were motivated by the Charlie Hebdo shooting in France and the 2015 Copenhagen shooting in Denmark earlier in the year. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack through a Twitter post.
      7/16/2015 – 5 killed, 2 injured – 2015 Chattanooga shootings: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He first committed a drive-by shooting at a recruiting center, then traveled to a naval reserve center and continued firing. He was killed by police in a gunfight. Four Marines were killed immediately, and another Marine, a Navy sailor, and a police officer were wounded; the sailor died from his injuries two days later.
      11/4/2015 – 4 wounded – University of California, Merced stabbing attack: Faisal Mohammad, armed with an hunting knife, stabbed four people at the University of California before being shot and killed by police.
      12/2/2015 – 14 dead, 24 wounded – San Bernardino Shooting – Terrorists Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik engaged in a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, before they were killed.
      1/7/2016 – 1 wounded – Edward Archer ambushed and shot a cop in his cruiser, claiming allegiance to ISIS.
      2/11/2016 – 4 wounded – Somali Mohamed Barry attacked people in a restaurant with a machete. He was under investigation by the FBI for radical Islamist views.
      6/12/2016 – 49 killed, 53 wounded – 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting: The nightclub shooting is currently the deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history. The sole suspect behind the slaughter was identified as Omar Mateen, an American-born citizen with Afghan immigrant parents who was later killed. The FBI asserted his possible link to radical Islam. Mateen also may have been acting from homophobic intentions resulting from his own self-hatred, according to several men who claim Mateen was gay. Homosexuality is a capital offense in extremist Islam. These men say they had seen him at the club and on gay dating sites such as Grindr. However, the FBI could not find evidence to suggest Mateen was gay or targeted Pulse because it was a gay club, according to The Washington Post.
      8/20/2016 – 2 wounded – Wasil Farooqui stabbed a man and a woman in a random attack at a an apartment complex, trying to behead the man in a lone wolf, ISIS inspired attack.
      9/17/2016 – 10 wounded – 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing: On September 17, 2016, a mass stabbing occurred at the Crossroads Center shopping mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Ten people were injured, and the attacker was shot dead inside the mall by an off-duty law enforcement officer.[125] ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack through its Amaq media agency, claiming Adan “was a soldier of the Islamic State”
      9/17-19/2016 – 34 wounded – 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings: Four bombings or bombing attempts occurred in the New York metropolitan area, specifically in Seaside Park, New Jersey; Manhattan, New York; and Elizabeth, New Jersey. Thirty-one civilians were injured in one of the bombings. Ahmad Khan Rahimi was identified as a suspect in all of the incidents and apprehended on September 19 in Linden, New Jersey, after a shootout that injured three police officers. According to authorities, Rahami was not part of a terrorist cell, but was motivated and inspired by the extremist Islamic ideology espoused by al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda chief propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki.
      11/28/2016 – 13 wounded – 2016 Ohio State University attack: A car ramming attack and mass stabbing occurred at 9:52 a.m. EST at Ohio State University (OSU)’s Watts Hall in Columbus, Ohio. The attacker, Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan, was shot and killed by the first responding OSU police officer, and 11 people were hospitalized for injuries. According to authorities, Artan was inspired by terrorist propaganda from the Islamic State and radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
      1/6/2017 – 5 killed, 42 wounded – 2017 Fort Lauderdale Airport attack – Esteban Santiago-Ruiz, an Iraq veteran, went to the FBI and claimed that he was being forced to watch ISIS recruitment videos. Amazingly, he was not committed, and his guns were not taken away due to a mental health hold. He may be mentally ill instead of an ISIS terrorist; it’s still unfolding.

      Now, there were also some Earth Liberation Front, BLM, and other domestic attacks that were not terrorism related.

      We also know that in areas like Germany, where they took in huge numbers of Syrian refugees, those refugees retained their Old World values, and there promptly began a huge rise in sexual assaults on women. It is so bad that women now die their hair or wear a hijab just to try to travel safely. We also know of the many iinstances of radical Islamic terrorism in our sister Western nations. (Paris, anyone?)

      So, based on the above, we know that there have been many instances where Syrian refugees brought the same violence and human rights abuses with them that their country is famous for. We know that radical Islamic terrorism is on the rise here in the US, committed by immigrants, the children of immigrants, as well as the radicalization of our own citizens based via the internet. We know that there are more countries infamous for terrorism that are not on the extreme vetting list. Maybe they should be.

      So, is the answer to our problem of rising terrorism to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees, from a country that merely visiting is enough to get you on a CIA terror watch list, and hope that the exact same thing that happened in Europe does not happen here? Remember what Einstein said about fools repeating the same experiment but hoping for a different result…

      We know that extreme vetting will not completely solve the problem. How could it? Radical Islamic terrorism spreads like a hydra with many heads. No one approach will kill it. But can it help? Can it at least reduce the number of attacks?

      Western values are superior, in my opinion, to non-Western values. Of course I feel that way. I’m a feminist. So I believe that the West’s views on the treatment and equality of women, gays, and religion are superior, even if individuals in our country fall short at times. So when we import people from regions with non-Western values, it is of course obvious to the most casual observer that they will not suddenly embrace Western values when their foot hits our soil. There is a difference in the motivation to assimilate between the woman fleeing an arranged marriage, the gay many fleeing a death sentence, the poet and government critic fleeing a flogging, or small children fleeing a war zone, than angry displaced young men who had no wish whatsoever to leave their homeland and are being forced to do so. Or perhaps they just want to keep fighting.

      At some point, based on the above, you have to hold the President, and Congress, accountable for our safety, and demand that they fight the threat of terrorism on our own soil. There is being polite, and there is being responsible. I’m sorry, but if you hail from a country infamous for wanting to murder every man, woman, and child living here, then you should expect us to be extremely mistrustful, and careful, in admitting you as an immigrant. You should expect extreme vetting and not complain about it.

      The Catholic Pedophile Priest scandal was a Catholic Problem. The IRA was an Irish Problem. Chechnyan Terrorists were a Chechnyan problem. And Radical Islamic Terrorism is a Muslim problem. Just like all Catholic priests, Irish, and Chechnyans were not pedophiles or terrorists, not all Muslims are radicalized. Some are the Shahs of Sunset merrily shopping and dancing the night away. That does not mean that radical Islamic terrorism is not a Muslim problem. It is. And separating out the extremists from the moderates is a necessary, if non-PC, thing we are required to do.

      1. There’s a whole lot in your statement. First of all we’re all immigrants or descendants of immigrants so pointing to some is a bit disingenuous. The list of atrocities committed in the same time frame by white Americans many with a right-wing philosophy is much longer. I am sincerely more concerned personally about being killed by a militia member of a policeman than I am a refugee from any of the seven countries who have thus far killed exactly zero people. Many of the people that kill abortion doctors or committed lynchings (even in modern time) or shot up mosques are avowed Christians, should we ban them.
        I’m not suggesting we not vet people from all other countries. The refugees from the countries involved have undergone up to a two-year process of vetting. I give you credit for not completely denying this to be a Muslim ban. Our vetting process will be harder now because of the new recruits to ISIS as a result of this action. Thank you Donald Trump.
        I wonder, seriously if you or I left the country and upon return we had to undergo the same vetting as some of the refugees. I have heard anecdotal reports that people detained were asked about their feelings toward Donald Trump. I don’t know that to be true but the thought is chilling. It’s been reported that after the Federal Judge issued a stay that various Federal entities refused to honor it. I don’t know personally that it’s true but the thought is chilling.
        You readily recognize that all Catholics are not pedophiles and would never dream of treating them all as if they were. The same for the Irish and IRA, etc. All white-people are obviously not Klan members in right wing militias. The difference I would mention is that Congress and Fox News shoots down any attempt to even mention the prevalence and growth of these American terrorists who want to “Make America Great Again” emphasis on again.
        Donald Trump in the campaign said we “needed to go after the families” of terrorists. Recently we killed the 8-year-old daughter of a terrorist in a raid approved by Trump where we also lost a Navy Seal. Trump spokesman brag about the amount of intelligence we were able to garner in the raid. Of course I’m still waiting for the droves of information uncovered by private detectives in Hawaii about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. One thing we might agree on is that Trump is a huckster and a liar. He has no command of any issues so apparently Steve Bannon is running the White House. Heaven halp us all.

        1. Enigma does not recognize the NATIVE AMERICANS in this country who are NOT immigrants. Probably doesn’t even know one. All four of my grandparents were immigrants..LEGAL immigrants who LOVED their adopted homeland.

          1. Even the Native Americans migrated here from somewhere. We can eve call them the true Founding Fathers if you like. There is evidence they came from Asia, even some from Africa but I won’t try to convince anyone here of that. Most immigrants to this country love it as well. Some are discouraged to discover how little some love them back.

            1. enigma, Lame. By virtue of you calling them, “Native Americans” you tacitly admit they are not immigrants. And, if you think my Italian grandparents received much “love” when they got here w/o a pot to piss in then you are immersed in your victimhood. You don’t seek love, you WORK HARD and get respect.

              We agree, most immigrants love this country much more than you do. I talk w/ Iraqi Christian immigrants here in San Diego, daily. The love this country and are supporters of Trump.

              1. Too many Somali immigrants in my other home of Minneapolis do not love this country.

                  1. Put your new grandkid where your mouth is. Talk her parents into moving to a neighborhood in a predominantly Somalian area. Let her go to school with a bunch of Somalians. Then, if she makes it out educated and unscarred, you can come here and tell us from your own personal experience how wonderful Somalian Muslims in the U.S. are.’

                    But you won’t. Because you are all about Virtue Signaling. Not reality.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                1. This Somali immigrant legislator seems to love her new country and her new job as a Minnesota legislator. 🙂

                  1. SWG, I was, of course, speaking in generalities. But, I have been in Somali neighborhoods. They are generally not friendly to W/M Americans.They are unhappy people in general. You should realize they are VERY conservative Muslims. They cover their poor girls head to toe shortly after they are able to walk. I actually understand Somali’s unhappiness. They came from a strict Muslim culture and despise our lifestyle. They are not assimilating like so many other cultures, and their religion is at the core of their being so disaffected.

                    On the flip side, my daughter had a Somali nurse when she gave birth to our granddaughter. The woman was covered, but seemed to accept our culture. She obviously was educated and had a successful career. I spoke w/ her and she was pretty engaging. She has a masters in nursing and is planning on getting her doctorate so she can teach. She spoke fluent English. She is an exception.

                    When I’m in an Iraqi Christian neighborhood or store the tenor is so much different. They have admiration for Americans and are so happy to be here. They are hard working and business oriented.

                  2. “Seems to” would be the operative words. The Somali community from Minnesota has the distinction of providing more Al Shabab/IS terrorists than Muslim communities in any other state. Did you follow the “Minnesota Men” terror trial in Minneapolis last year? If I recall correctly it resulted in about 10 convictions (not all those resulted at the trial; some plead guilty, some even testified).

                    You may have missed it, what with the steady stream of “Minnesota Men” (the press has settled on that term as a euphemism, hoping that that will fool people into thinking they’re Nordic lumberjack-types from the north woods with names like Sven and Ingmar) going into the system for trying to join the jihad.

                    https://www.scribd.com/document/141541029/US-Attorney-Four-More-Men-Sentenced-for-Providing-Material-Support-to-Terrorists

                    In the 2016 iteration some of the accused agreed to cooperate and turned state’s evidence. The whole Somali community in Minneapolis turned out to support… the accused wannabe terrorist on trial. The judge had to turn a vacant courtroom into a theater so the overflow crowd could watch on closed circuit TV. Consequently and despite the fact the judge had issued strict warnings about what he would not under any circumstances tolerate, there were fights in the corridors, and some just outright support.

                    Because of the overwhelming support of the Somali Muslim community for the terror suspects, the trial was conducted in an unprecedented atmosphere of violence and witness intimidation.

                    Unfortunately they don’t quote him in full here, as the press is trying to help the Somalis deny they have a terrorism problem.

                    http://kstp.com/news/prosecution-reaction-minnesota-terror-islamic-state-trial/4159335/

              2. So now I don’t love this country? It’s why I fight so hard on its behalf. Hopefully supporting Trump isn’t your definition. That tacitly supports racism, misogyny, sexual assault and xenophobia.

                1. Time to go open a dictionary not a fictinary. You just described the Clinton campaign perfectly.

                    1. No, putting on a uniform and being willing to fight for for his country is the ONLY way to fight for this country.

                      http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/wacotrib.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/11/211d074f-eec6-5fef-a572-7452a7dec453/55bbeb3aa7aa8.image.jpg?resize=300%2C272

                      Everything else is just talk. Use different jargon if you mean “advocate” or some such, but not actual fighting.

                      I say this is as a proud member of a family of janitors and shoe shine boys ever since my ancestors got off the boat from Italy. But, we’re something different now. And no the streets weren’t paved with gold.

        2. First of we reject your PC definition of left and right as useless. Second the white identify group formerly secular progressives are huddled at the extreme left and an open invitation has been issued to AFRO Americans to take over what’s left of the DNC. For one thing they could get paybacks on the party of slavery, Jim crow laws, black laws, and anti civil rights . it’s there for the taking. DNC, bank accounts, buildings, offices, local committees, well in the NE And west coast anyway. All it takes is doing it.

          Nervous Nellies and those working for Soros should be vetted severely.

        3. Enigma – first, thank you for reading my extraordinarily long post. I disagree with you on some points.

          “There’s a whole lot in your statement. First of all we’re all immigrants or descendants of immigrants so pointing to some is a bit disingenuous.”

          I disagree. We are literally all immigrants in every country. Our Native American tribes displaced the surviving Clovis Indians, and migrated across America, displacing other tribes.

          Moral equivalence is false logic. Likening those living in the US, with Western values, with immigrants from, say, an ISIS training camp, is not logical. The difference lies in the Western culture or values.

          “The list of atrocities committed in the same time frame by white Americans many with a right-wing philosophy is much longer.” Again, this is a false logic technique of moral equivalence, as well as tu quoque. There are many forms of violence across the globe. Radical Islamic terrorism is one of them. So is female genital mutilation, animal abuse, domestic abuse, child abuse, pedophilia, murder, gang violence…One does not go to court and say that one should not be punished for murdering one’s wife becomes someone in another state shot up a church. The cause of each type of violence is investigated, and prevented where it may. Laws against domestic violence, women’s shelters, help lines, and neighbors keeping an eye out are all methods that our country employs, for example, to prevent and reduce domestic violence. In the same manner, one must attack the problem of radical Islamic terrorism. The Earth Liberation Front is not right wing, and yet it has engaged in several domestic terrorism attacks. Why is the GOP worse than, say, ISIS or Al Qaeda, or the guy who kills his daughter for eloping?

          “I am sincerely more concerned personally about being killed by a militia member of a policeman than I am a refugee from any of the seven countries who have thus far killed exactly zero people.” Do you plan to assault a policeman? Because the common thread of most, but not all, of the police shootings is the perpetrator was fighting the arrest. If you merely cooperate, and save your complaints for an IA investigation, you should be fine. Just in case, here is Chris Rock’s timely advice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8.

          It is actually not true that no one from the 7 countries has killed anyone. Please see the above list. Iraq. Iran. Syria.Yemen.Sudan.Somalia.Libya. We went to war with Iraq, plenty of Iraqis killed our soldiers, plenty of Iraqi security forces turned on our soldiers. The attack in Benghazi? Merely visiting Syria for any reason other than a humanitarian aid mission is enough to get you on a terror watch list with the CIA. You actually think no Syrian has ever been a terrorist against the West, or trained a terrorist against the West? Or that none of the nationals in the above 7 countries have engaged in massive violence in Europe because of unlimited immigration? My point is that the refugee influx did not work out too well in Europe, hence we should be cautious about repeating their mistake. We know these counties are absolutely rife with terrorists and anti-Western sentiment. Why would you think that importing them will cause no problems, while political opponents and police here in the US are the real threat? I cannot follow this oft repeated logic.

          So…the Left is pro woman, pro gay, but they want to import a bunch of people from a region that abuses women and kills gays, and thinks the real existential crisis is the GOP which has been living with us for all this time…and no one has a problem with this?

          “Our vetting process will be harder now because of the new recruits to ISIS as a result of this action.” Radical Islamic extremists hate the West. They hate that we women are educated, have equal rights, that we are allowed to practice any faith we want or none at all, they hate the gays. In fact they hate a lot. They hate fellow Muslims who are not extremist enough. They kill kids who offend the Prophet. They let little girls burn when their school catches fire because they wouldn’t let them evacuate without their veils. Merely the accusation that someone injured a Qu’ran is enough for an extremist mob to kill someone. They kill apostates, Christians, Jews, women who marry without permission…They hated us and attacked us prior to this extreme vetting, and they will hate us and attack us after. We give aid and supplies and education, and they hate us. They hate Israel because they will never accept a non-Muslim country in the ME, ever.

          The point of ISIS is a GLOBAL caliphate and brining about end times. So how do you propose that we appease them so that they will completely abandon their motive of world domination? Do you think if we open our borders and let them all in, with no extra vetting whatsoever, that everything will be OK? And the real person you should fear is the GOP?

          “You readily recognize that all Catholics are not pedophiles and would never dream of treating them all as if they were.” Actually, the Catholic Church, and its attendees, have imposed new rules that treat every single priest and employee as if they were a potential pedophile. They go through background checks, and no child may ever be left in a room alone with any Church priest or employee…ever. And the congregation welcomes this and STILL believes they need to do more. (Personally, I say again that Cardinal Mahoney belongs in jail.) And during the IRA attacks and the Chechnyan terrorists, you had better believe they used a version of extreme vetting, spy networks, etc.

          That said, I completely disagree with Trump’s statements that we need to go after the families of terrorists. Interrogate them for more information, yes, but hurt the families, no. He’s wrong. Unintended collateral damage is one thing, but deliberately targeting them would be wrong. We should not stoop to their level.

        4. “The list of atrocities committed in the same time frame by white Americans many with a right-wing philosophy is much longer.”

          No, it’s not. And I’ll tell you another thing, white right-wingers haven’t killed or harmed one percent of those killed or injured by Muslim terrorists. Not how the people with an axe to grind always begin with the words “Since 9/11…”

          It’s vitally important, you see, if you’re going to do propaganda to get the timing correct. If you want your pro-Muslim/anti-white right-winger propaganda to look like you may be making a valid point then it’s important to exclude the time Muslims killed thousands in a single day.

        1. No, because he did not commit his terrible crime because of his religion. It’s my understanding he was a white supremacist.

          If you want another “Christian problem” I suppose you could find any of the fringe sects that believe that homosexuals should die. That would be whatever the name of that fringe sect’s problem. That’s not a mainstream belief, but there’s a group for every crazy. Child brides and the lost boys is a FLDS problem.

          1. There’s nothing fringe about believing that. Or, rather, that defiant and unrepentant sinners will die. That the wages of sin is death. Those who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior will receive everlasting life.

            That’s as mainstream as it gets for Christianity. It’s actually the whole point of the religion.

            But nowhere does the Bible command anyone to commit the crime and sin of murder to exact punishment for any sin.

    6. Your points are specious. But I found no. 5 especially amusing. So you think Barack Obama’s administration named those seven countries of special concern related to visa compliance because they wanted to make sure they didn’t harm Donald Trump’s business interests?

      Because it’s an Obama administration list. Trump’s E.O. doesn’t even mention any of these countries by name.

      https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/visa-waiver-program-improvement-and-terrorist-travel-prevention-act-faq

      “…The U.S. Congress shares this concern, and on December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, which includes the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act)…

      …These restrictions do not apply to VWP travelers whose presence in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, or Yemen was to perform military service in the armed forces of a program country, or in order to carry out official duties as a full-time employee of the government of a program country…”

      All I can say is it was very considerate and forward thinking of Barack Obama and his natsec personnel to create this list back in 2015 with the specific objective of advancing Donald Trump’s business interests.

      Or, Donald Trump is much more powerful than liberals give him credit for as he can bend entire presidential administrations and federal agencies in Washington D.C. to his will just using The Force. All the way from Manhattan.

      Or, and maybe you haven’t considered this one, it would have been illegal for Donald Trump to do business with Iran at that time and the others are failed states. And failed states typically don’t have very promising business environments. Were you seriously planning vacations at the any of the new line of Trump Resorts and Golf Courses at Benghazi, Mogadishu, Raqaa, Khartoum, and Aden in December 2015?

      1. Steve57 – well said. But these facts will never percolate to the majority of the American public. They just read the headlines that Trump did this to get rich, and move on without thinking.

    7. How does the “this is a Muslim ban” position stand in face of Kuwait , a Muslim dominated nation, and other Muslim nations, banning people from many of the 7 nations on our list.

      1. A little quick research (that you could have done) shows that this rumour was based on Russian misinformation published in Sputnik which you might guess is a Russian publication and has since been disproved. It’s a Muslim ban because Trump asked Giuliani to come up with a Muslim ban that was legal. They also allowed themselves room to expand beyond the initial seven countries so it isn’t limited. They also gave themselves the right to lengthen it so it isn’t temporary.

        1. You think the left wing fascist warmongers are going to get the idea their days are numbered – ever? If not no biggie..Part of the job is not to give in to the enemies domestic. I don’t look at things from the secular regressive PC viewpoint only from the viewpoint of support and defend the Constitution and the Republic and it’s basic democratic principles. If their are casualties especially self inflicted? So be it. Swamp has to be drained one way or the other.

          Yes Warren did get national attention. So did a certain Senator from Wisconsin back in the early fifties.

      2. I don’t know ask the State Department your premise your place to provide the opening argument if their is one and the reasons and facts for the statement…

        Let’s see as a wild guess….they weren’t on Obama’s list of nations that produce terrorists?

        Maybe they will be in Phase V or VI?

    1. Good video! First, there was the whole “unlawful” thingy, which Trump’s Order is NOT. Just because one could make an argument that it is, doesn’t make it unlawful. Second, even Sally Yates said that one should give their independent legal advice to the President. Which she did not.

      What you think supports your position, does not.

      Plus, what you need to understand about the term “good faith” legal arguments, is that they are usually tied in to arguments that are in opposition to established and existing laws. One example, from the ABA:

      Advocate
      Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims And Contentions

      A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

      You see, you have to go above and beyond to make a “good faith” argument. It is not a “presumption.” The “presumption” favors the existing state of the law. What Sally Yates did was buck her job duties, without any “good faith” supporting legal argument at all. It was just an exercise in political drama AGAINST her client.

      I am not at all sure that she shouldn’t be disbarred, or at least suspended for a few years.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  9. I am sooo happy to see the amount of support that Trump has gotten for firing Drama Queen Yates.

    I am however waiting for the Insane Left to rear its head and claim that it is “discrimination” and a “violation of rights” to fire someone just because they won’t do what you hired them to do, or is incompetent. And do not think that is a silly stretch. Because the Insane Left is currently claiming that it is wrong to call illegal aliens “illegal”, because why should they have to obey our laws? That’s xenophobia, discrimination, and not nice, And claiming that foreigners in foreign lands have American rights, and thus should be able to come here willy-nilly, and we must be as blind to their proclivities, as we are to the proclivities of Satanists when they wish to place statues of His Nibs in Christmas scenes.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  10. Imagine, if you can, Yates pulling this sh@t during Obama’s reign and instructing the DOJ to refuse to cooperate with him. Just try to imagine the outcries, the accusations, the relentless lectures pertaining to racism and bigotry supposedly inherent in our despicable culture, not to mention, the threats against her life. Yates would be a pariah. A villain. She would forever have the mark of Cain. I can still vividly recall the look of terror on Pelosi’s face when some congressman dared–dared–to call the thin-skinned and pretentious Obama a liar during one of his speeches. At least, I think that it was a look of terror that I vaguely recognized through that overly Botoxed and tightened face. Now, however, in sharp contrast, there is no hesitation, whatsoever, to call Trump every name in the book. No one is shocked. Appalled. It’s a whole new ballgame. A different guy is at bat, and this time, new rules apply. He isn’t accorded the same deference as the previous player. No, no, no. Now, entire departments are instructed to fail to cooperate with the President. Who said that there isn’t a great racial divide in this country? There certainly is one, yet it’s not the one which we have been indoctrinated to believe exists.

  11. The issues raised in this post are fairly straightforward. Sally Yates is no different than any other employee in this country. If you disobey your boss, “You’re fired!”, to coin a phrase.

    Yates voluntarily accepted the position of Acting Attorney General. She knew who her boss would be. She knew what campaign promises he made. If she could not in good faith perform the responsibilities of the position, she was ethically bound to decline the appointment. If, after accepting appointment to the position, she felt legally or morally obligated to refuse to follow an order of her boss, she should have resigned.

    The President of the United States is an official elected by the people. The Attorney General is not. The country cannot withstand unelected bureaucrats countermanding the orders of elected officials. If every cabinet member went off on his own tangent, enforcing whatever laws he or she chose, Congress would be irrelevant.

    Yates’ conduct displays the height of arrogance. She feels she is above the law and above the person elected to enforce that law. No one should stand in her corner.

Comments are closed.