I'm sure they are already fully covered
The large part of the post above the quoted section is in my opinion a flight of fancy up there with Pegasus over the rainbow
The Muslim Ban Has Begun!
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
I'm sure they are already fully covered
The large part of the post above the quoted section is in my opinion a flight of fancy up there with Pegasus over the rainbow
may be someone else could answer this one...
Oh and they can also add the need for a regular medical and psychiatric assessments as a precautionary measure of the POTUS to the list....
I wonder how many respondents in this survey were aware that under the previous administration a robust vetting processes was actively in place? It would seem that the Trump team wasn't interested in taking over a perfectly adequate vetting process, and instead thought it better to reinvent the wheel. If this is the case then maybe it would be wise for this toddler administration to run with training wheels for a number of months while it tries to attain the proficiency they should've had on day one.
Is this going to happen with every agency of the federal government? For example, with the FAA, would Trump be inclined to ground all aircraft until he could re brand that organization as well?
I would be very surprised if POTUS did not get very regular medical examinations
reporting to who?
Don't know
Don't care
However but may be ummm if you find out please let us all know by posting the information here thanks
I wonder why President Trump isn't also mentioning (rather the media reporting) the similar ban that President Obama did in 2011 against Iraqi muslims. If I remember the main stream media presented this to some extent, but the demonstrators were no where to be found. Why were the demonstrators so uncaring back then? Trump is throwing the leftist a bone to pick, knowing their base will not do their research. The bias is on display for all to see.
What I like about the ban is it is pointing a finger to the unstable countries of the middle east, most of which were made unstable by the policies of the last administration, when they picked the wrong people to side with, and allowed ISIS to appear.
Trump did mention it, and the media has reported it, and they're not the same.
“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”
Leaving aside the unusual nature of team Trump looking to his predecessors’ policies for cover, it seems worth pointing out this statement obscures at least five enormous differences between the executive order the White House issued on Friday and what the Obama administration did.
1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”
Leaving aside the unusual nature of team Trump looking to his predecessors’ policies for cover, it seems worth pointing out this statement obscures at least five enormous differences between the executive order the White House issued on Friday and what the Obama administration did.
1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
Social media: FB example of reaction to Sally Yates dismissal
She has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the US, not to obey the POTUS. She is not convinced the Trump Executive Order(memo) is Constitutional and is taking the appropriate action. Any employee of the federal government who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and to execute lawful orders. They should not execute orders they deem to be unconstitutional or unlawful. She is truly an American HERO!.
10588 likes
Of course Trump was going to fire Yates, and she no doubt knew that when she made the decision to defy the White House. How does the monster sleep at night? Thank you for your service, Yates.
3232 likes
This is what PATRIOTISM looks like - thank you, Sally Yates!
3056 likes
Dictator in progress, She knew President Bannon and his right hand Pussy-Grabber-In-Chief would do that. She wanted to leave with her head held up high instead of partaking in a Muslim ban.
SHE IS OUR HERO
2428 likes
It is not the responsibility of the justice department to defend the president, it is their responsibility to defend the Constitution. Sally Yates has performed her duty with integrity. #americanhero
1254 likes
If you are going to be fired any ways, you may as well go out in a blaze of glory. Good work Sally Yates! Thank you for your service. History will be kind to you! #resist
2083 likes
CNN Article shared 10554 31/01/2017
She has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the US, not to obey the POTUS. She is not convinced the Trump Executive Order(memo) is Constitutional and is taking the appropriate action. Any employee of the federal government who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and to execute lawful orders. They should not execute orders they deem to be unconstitutional or unlawful. She is truly an American HERO!.
10588 likes
Of course Trump was going to fire Yates, and she no doubt knew that when she made the decision to defy the White House. How does the monster sleep at night? Thank you for your service, Yates.
3232 likes
This is what PATRIOTISM looks like - thank you, Sally Yates!
3056 likes
Dictator in progress, She knew President Bannon and his right hand Pussy-Grabber-In-Chief would do that. She wanted to leave with her head held up high instead of partaking in a Muslim ban.
SHE IS OUR HERO
2428 likes
It is not the responsibility of the justice department to defend the president, it is their responsibility to defend the Constitution. Sally Yates has performed her duty with integrity. #americanhero
1254 likes
If you are going to be fired any ways, you may as well go out in a blaze of glory. Good work Sally Yates! Thank you for your service. History will be kind to you! #resist
2083 likes
CNN Article shared 10554 31/01/2017
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I've decided that you don't know what you are talking about and you just look up a term and then wear it out as if you do know what you are talking about.
Case in point, precedent...
why do you think your opinion is important enough or "net speak" is worthy enough to be too concerned about?
The point of my posts is/are clear and easy to ascertain.
Sally Yates will get her day in court I have very little doubt about that. She may yet set a "precedent" in an unprecedented way...
As many have said "She is an American hero..." something the world needs right now....
It is really sad... you know... I can see you flag burning all the way from here and there is naught I can do about it....
When I was a kid I used to think Superman was for real....
Sally Yates will get her day in court I have very little doubt about that. She may yet set a "precedent" in an unprecedented way...
As many have said "She is an American hero..." something the world needs right now....
It is really sad... you know... I can see you flag burning all the way from here and there is naught I can do about it....
When I was a kid I used to think Superman was for real....
Last edited:
The precedent was set by President Obama, which was to deny entry to the US, by citizens of other countries, where suspected terrorism posed risk to our country. One difference is Obama policies helped widened the terrorist rich territories, since the 2011 ban. But the question is still, why were there no protests, back then, since poor Muslim refugees were also at risk, including good people, who risked their lives to help the USA? Some of the American friendly helpers were murdered during the ban, and not just inconvenienced at an airport. The selective protest is all about gaming the system.
One thing to remember, is there is about a 3 day news cycle, until the once hot news, starts to gets boring and will be replaced with new and improved exaggerated news. Can you remember what was earth shaking last week, at this time, and where is that now? It seemed so important, yet it was dropped, because it was fake and neutralized.
In my opinion, the media needs to create hype, with once sided reporting, to get their base to watch paid commercials. The hype has a limited self life, since it is all about entertainment value, and not reasoning, based on all the facts. They depend on the spin to create viewer overcompensation, to appease inner doubt. The overcompensation is the main source of viewer excitement, which lasts about three days, until common sense kicks in.
Trump is aware of this and will not give in, since all he has to do is wait it out /or help the speed up the turnover, by throwing a new bone so they can induce new fake news for a fresh excitement buzz. The Trump goal could be to make Soros, have to overspend on his protestor budget. It may be also to get the majority of people, growing tired of the constant media brush fires, that the media adds accelerant too.
The best appropriate action if she felt she could not defend the Order (as in a Executive Order on paper not a verbal order) would have been to resign
The worst would be to go public and say the Order is immoral
And you know about both statements how?
True the position was in caretaker mode and she would have left when Trumps pick was confirmed
Was she waiting to be given a Order she disagreed with?
He's not?
Are you suggesting that if the president says so, it is her obligation to sacrifice her bar number by filing a bogus case?
What part of choice do you not follow?
Bells
Staff member
Actually, it is probably more a case of not following his instructions because of the very high chance and risk that his instructions were not legal. There is every appearance that he is applying a religious test to those banned, not to mention openly discriminating against other countries. Discriminating and denying people the right to migrate or enter the US because of their country of origin or place of birth is actually illegal.
Trump failed to acknowledge the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and instead focused solely on a previous iteration of the Act from 1952. The 1952 Act was amended and became the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which clearly states that it is illegal to discriminate against migrants or deny entry to people based on their country of birth, nationality, religion, sex, race or place of residence. In other words, the 1952 version of the Act allowed for discrimination based on religion, race and country of birth or origin. The 1965 amendment of said Act removed that and declared that it is illegal to discriminate on those grounds.
Trump's executive order not only set a religious test (and a case can be made for this when members of his administration have been out and about declaring that they would give preference to Christian refugees), but also denied visas or entry to legitimate refugees and visitors and even permanent residents to the US, because of their origin or place of birth and their religion.
Had Ms Yates yielded to Trump's whims, ideology aside, she would have been breaking the law and acting against the law.
And this is aside from any ethics or morality, more to the point, the lack thereof of ethics and morality from his executive order..
Trump does not want people to not defy the law. Trump wants to surround himself with sycophants who will not say no. Ms Yates first obligation is to the law. Trump expected and demanded that her first obligation was to him and his White House. And that is wrong on so many levels.
There is something even more disturbing about his dismissal of Ms Yates. Her refusal to possibly break the law and endorse an executive order that has every appearance of being illegal, resulted in her being accused of betrayal of the Department of Justice. Which is astonishing. Her refusal to adhere to his whims is somehow a betrayal...
She is being painted as being weak by the administration and Trump.. But the betrayal line from his administration is troubling. The tone it sets is exceptionally troubling because it sends the message that to disagree with Trump, to not do his bidding, is a betrayal of one's position in Government or even a betrayal of one's country. She has become an enemy.
How do you figure that?
Trump and his White House used an executive order that ignored the presiding statute and law of the land, and instead, trying to slip in a previous version of the law. And this is not even looking at the Fourteenth Amendment..
I have been keeping an eye on this thread for the last few days and one thing sticks out like a sore thumb.. And that is this kind of attitude.
Quantum made a very valid point.. What is the role of a President if he encourages his staff to act against the laws of the country he presides over? Hasn't he broken said oath of office in doing so?
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
There is a reason why an AG who agreed to stay in place until his pick passed through the Senate for approval, decided to speak out. His order was and is illegal. She would have been remiss in her duties if she went along with it and with him.
His order has created a Constitutional crisis in the US. And that is why Ms Yates would have refused to support it or lend her voice to it and instead spoke out against it. The fact that his White House have openly defied the court's in continuing to apply his new law shows just how little he cares about the law or the Constitution.
So, I find your comments bizarre because they make absolutely no sense. Quantum's comments were exceptionally pertinent given the subject matter of this thread.
Actually, the appropriate action was to state the highly probable illegal nature of the order. That is her job.
And that is exactly what she did. Unless of course you think that AG's and other lawyers swear fealty to the President before anything else?
Because that is how he operates and has done so publicly for a very long time now.
She was doing what she was supposed to do in the face of the circumstances she found herself in.
Is it common for AG's to have to swear allegiance and show fealty to the President or be declared a betrayer for daring to disagree with or question the legality of the actions of an Administration that is acting outside of the legal boundaries?
Or do you just want to spin a conspiracy theory?
Obviously there is a third choice - just because you don't like it doesn't mean she didn't do the right thing. In fact, you not liking it is probably a good indication that it was the correct legal and moral interpretation. Your approval seems to be an inversely proportional litmus test for that sort of thing...
That is correct. So in this case her legal advice to him would be "you are in the wrong, so if they offer you a deal, take it."