Liam Dale wrote:Funny to see THeresa May taking the 70 year old narcissist little boy by the hand and helping him down the slippery slope he has created for himself.
State Dept. Dissent Cable on Trump’s Ban Draws 1,000 Signatures
It started out in Washington.
Then it went to Jakarta. Then across Africa.
One version even showed up on Facebook.
Within hours, a State Department dissent cable, asserting that President Trump’s executive order to temporarily bar citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries would not make the nation safer, traveled like a chain letter — or a viral video.
The cable wended its way through dozens of American embassies around the world, quickly emerging as one of the broadest protests by American officials against their president’s policies. And it is not over yet.
By 4 p.m. on Tuesday, the letter had attracted around 1,000 signatures, State Department officials said, far more than any dissent cable in recent years. It was being delivered to management, and department officials said more diplomats wanted to add their names to it.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... spartandhp
Democratic attorneys general in 4 states challenge Trump
Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and New York are becoming the first states to sue the Trump administration with filings announced this week over the executive order restricting refugees and immigration. They likely won't be standing alone for long.
Since Donald Trump was elected president, Democratic state attorneys general have been forming a coordinated wall of legal resistance over immigration, environmental protections, health care, and other major issues.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman told The Associated Press that lawyers, including attorneys general, are having an "awakening" regarding the Trump administration.
"This is a president who does not have respect for the rule of the law," Schneiderman said. "That's something that bothers a lot of people."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/democr ... spartandhp
And the fake news:Muslim Ban - Test Run for A Coup?
Big Picture Panel: David Halperin, Republic Report & Alex Lawson, Social Security Works. Donald Trump's illlegal and unconstitutional Muslim ban has caused complete chaos at airports all across the country. Was that the point? Hmm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNGbPIzdJd0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AuETl7Mk3E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvTtBZqNYDM
RT news (Right-center media bias. Factual reporting: mixed).
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/
Lone Star wrote:The ban isn't illegal. It's not unconstitutional. It's not a Muslim ban. There is no mention of any religion in the Executive Order.
Where were you when Obama was banning Iraqis from obtaining visas for six months in 2011 and Cuban refugees on the last full day he was in office?
Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011
In justifying his controversial executive order halting travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries, President Trump claimed that President Barack Obama did the same thing in 2011. But the comparison is a bit facile.
Here’s what happened in 2011.
The Facts
The only news report that we could find that referred to a six-month ban was a 2013 ABC News article that included this line: “As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News — even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.”
The “Kentucky case” refers to two Iraqis in Kentucky who in May 2011 were arrested and faced federal terrorism charges after officials discovered from an informant that Waad Ramadan Alwan, before he had been granted asylum in the United States, had constructed improvised roadside bombs in Iraq. The FBI, after examining fragments from thousands of bomb parts, found Alwan’s fingerprints on a cordless phone that had been wired to detonate an improvised bomb in 2005.
The arrests caused an uproar in Congress, and the Obama administration pledged to reexamine the records of 58,000 Iraqis who had been settled in the United States. The administration also imposed new, more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 1acc1a17bf
Left bias opinion-Fact-checking Trump's statements about Obama and refugees
Foreign Policy notes several more differences between the Obama administration's actions in 2011 and Trump's order on Friday. The Obama review applied only to Iraqi's applying for Special Immigrant Visas – which help those who have assisted the U.S. in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan – and not to virtually all immigrants from seven countries, as Trump's does. Further, the Obama review came in response to a specific threat; Trump has not offered information demonstrating a need for his ban.
The seven countries listed in Trump's immigration ban did come from Obama's Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, which he signed in 2015. That law barred citizens from those seven countries from accessing the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries who are visiting the United States for less than 90 days to enter without a visa.
But, as Foreign Policy notes, the Obama legislation did not prevent anyone from coming to the U.S., and the administration ensured that it did not keep journalists, aid workers, officials from international organizations and other categories of travelers from entering the country.
According to Foreign Policy, Obama's 2011 measure did not bar refugees from entering the U.S., did not have the chaotic roll-out that Trump's order did and resulted in a stronger vetting process.
https://mic.com/articles/167077/did-oba ... .Y93pthSSb
John McCain's views are exactly why Republican and Conservative voters did not turn out at the polls for him and why he lost the 2008 election for president. He is part of the GOPe Mush in the Republican Party, and he is pretty much alone in his weak views except for his buddy Lindsey Graham of SC.fatbob wrote:John McCain's view of the ban makes a lot more sense.
Lone Star wrote:John McCain's views are exactly why Republican and Conservative voters did not turn out at the polls for him and why he lost the 2008 election for president. He is part of the GOPe Mush in the Republican Party, and he is pretty much alone in his weak views except for his buddy Lindsey Graham of SC.
Here Are the Republicans Who Have Criticized President Trump’s Immigration Ban
At least 20 Republicans have spoken out against President Donald Trump's executive order that bans immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.):
"This is ridiculous. " I guess I understand what his intention is, but unfortunately the order appears to have been rushed through without full consideration. You know, there are many, many nuances of immigration policy that can be life or death for many innocent, vulnerable people around the world," he said, according to the Post.
He continued:
"This 90-day ban could imperil the lives of this family and potentially others, and it’s unacceptable, and I urge the administration to halt enforcement of this order until a more thoughtful and deliberate policy can be reinstated."
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.):
Flake publicly opposed the ban in a Medium post on Saturday.
"It’s unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry,” Flake wrote. "Enhancing long term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims."
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.):
In a Twitter post, Amash wrote that "President Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system."
"It’s not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress," he tweeted, before adding that the denial of green card holders is, "particularly troubling."
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.):
Though Sasse agrees with Trump's decision to protect the country's borders, the Post reports, he said that the ban is "too broad."
"If we send a signal to the Middle East that the U.S. sees all Muslims as jihadis, the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims and that this is America versus one religion,” Sasse said. "Our generational fight against jihadism requires wisdom."
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME):
Collins released a statement criticizing Trump's executive order. "A preference should not be given to people who practice a particular religion, nor should a greater burden be imposed on people who practice a particular religion. As I stated last summer, religious tests serve no useful purpose in the immigration process and run contrary to our American values."
Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA):
Comstock wrote that though she believes in “increased vetting based on national security concerns,” she wrote that the President’s executive order “went beyond the increased vetting actions that Congress has supported on a bipartisan basis and inexplicably applied to green card holders, people who are legally within our country who have followed the rules.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC):
McCain and Graham released a joint statement on the immigration ban Sunday, saying that, "Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have serves as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in a country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees ho have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children."
"Ultimately," they continue, "we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism."
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
Portman, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said Trump's new vetting procedure was itself "not properly vetted." In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday, Portman said that while the U.S. does need to "tighten things up," Trump's approach was hasty and inconsistent with American values and national security interests.
“In my view, we ought to all take a deep breath and come up with something that makes sense for our national security and again for this notion that America has always been a welcoming home for refugees and immigrants," Portman said. "In fact, we are more welcoming than any country in the world and we should continue to be so.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
President of the Senate Finance Committee and Utah Senator Hatch, recalled that many of his own ancestors "were themselves refugees, religious minorities violently driven from their homes who undertook a long and dangerous journey to build a new life in a distant land." The Senator urged the Trump administration to "move quickly to tailor its policy on visa issuance as narrowly as possible" and reduce "unnecessary burdens on the vast majority of visa-seekers that present a promise—not a threat—to our nation."
Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.):
Though Heller told the Post that he supports better vetting and border protection, he said he is "deeply troubled by the appearance of a religious ban."
"The use of an overly broad executive order is not the way to strengthen national security," he said. "I encourage the Administration to partner with Congress to find a solution."
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.):
"The president's policy entirely misses the mark," Fitzpatrick said, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Fitzpatrick said that he thinks terrorism inspired by radicalism requires a "comprehensive response," not a "purely regional focus." Though he does think serious actions should be taken to protect the country, "these must not be done in a way that singles out any specific nations or ethnicities," he said.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.):
Shortly after Trump's executive order was announced, Lehtinen said she "objected to the suspension of visas" from the seven countries that are included in the ban. Instead, she suggests that "we could have accomplished our objective of keeping our homeland safe by immediate implementation of more thorough screening procedures," the Miami Herald reports.
"Both the letter and the spirit of the rule of law, on which our liberties rest, require that we honor legal commitments and procedures established by law, including existing visas and approved refugee status, absent specific articulable reasons for reversing a prior decision. The new Administration needs to pay careful attention to crafting orders that honor existing legal commitments and existing law, in contrast to this broad brush approach which doesn't focus on the precise problems," she told the Herald in a statement Saturday.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.):
In a Facebook post, Stefanik wrote that she thinks the country needs to both reform and strengthen its vetting process. However, she opposes Trump'simmigration ban—writing that "On the House Armed Services Committee, I have advocated for Iraqi and Afghans who have served side by side as our allies to be prioritized to access visas. It is Congress' role to write our immigration laws and I strongly urge the President to work with Congress moving forward as we reform our immigration system to strengthen our homeland security."
Cory Gardner (R-Colo.):
Though Gardner said he is supportive of the country's screening processes, "the travel blanket goes too far," he said, according to the Post.
"I also believe that lawful residents of the United States should be permitted to enter the country," he said. "I urge the Administration to take the appropriate steps to fix this overly broad executive order."
Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tex.):
Instead of fighting extremism alone, Hurd stressed that the U.S. should work with its allies.
"This visa ban is the ultimate display of mistrust and will erode our allies' willingness to fight with us," he said. "The ban also provides terrorist with another tool to gain sympathy and recruit new fighters."
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.):
While Lance says the Trump Administration should be concerned about "the security and safety of the American people,” he says the executive order went too far: Lance wrote in a Facebook post that "the President’s current travel ban executive order appears rushed and poorly implemented. Reports of green card holders and those who assisted us in the War on Terror being denied or delayed entry into the U.S. is deeply concerning and must be remedied immediately."
He continued: "It is Congress’ role to amend our immigration laws and I strongly urge President Trump to work with legislators to enact a clear, effective and enhanced vetting and monitoring process."
Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio):
Like many of the other Republicans who oppose the ban, Stivers agrees with Trump that the nation should improve its vetting process. However, he believes that "the executive order risks violating our nation’s values and fails to differentiate mainstream Islamic partners from radical Islamic terrorists—setting back our fight against radical Islam. I urge the Administration to quickly replace this temporary order with permanent improvements in the visa vetting process," he said, according to the Post.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.):
Toomey supports increased vetting, as well as a temporary suspension of "certain individuals from states that sponsor or provide safe havens to terrorists, or are too weak to prosecute terrorists within their borders." However, the senator does think the initial executive order was flawed—saying that it was "too broad and poorly explained."
"This apparently resulted in denied entry into the United States for lawful permanent residents and others who should have been allowed immediate entry," he said, according to the Post.
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.):
While Moran said he supports "thorough" vetting, he does not support "restricting the rights of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents," he said, the Post reports.
"Furthermore, far-reaching national security policy should always be devised in consultation with Congress and relevant government agencies," he said.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/29/donald-tr ... publicans/
Lone Star wrote:John McCain's views are exactly why Republican and Conservative voters did not turn out at the polls for him and why he lost the 2008 election for president. He is part of the GOPe Mush in the Republican Party, and he is pretty much alone in his weak views except for his buddy Lindsey Graham of SC.fatbob wrote:John McCain's view of the ban makes a lot more sense.
The extreme vetting that is taking place for arrivals in those 7 countries -- if they are even allowed to board at their country of exit -- protects America.
LIBs pretty much hate America. They can't disguise it anymore.
20 out of approximately 300 isn't many.Jello wrote:Lone Star wrote:John McCain's views are exactly why Republican and Conservative voters did not turn out at the polls for him and why he lost the 2008 election for president. He is part of the GOPe Mush in the Republican Party, and he is pretty much alone in his weak views except for his buddy Lindsey Graham of SC.
Here Are the Republicans Who Have Criticized President Trump’s Immigration Ban
At least 20 Republicans have spoken out against President Donald Trump's executive order that bans immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.):
"This is ridiculous. " I guess I understand what his intention is, but unfortunately the order appears to have been rushed through without full consideration. You know, there are many, many nuances of immigration policy that can be life or death for many innocent, vulnerable people around the world," he said, according to the Post.
He continued:
"This 90-day ban could imperil the lives of this family and potentially others, and it’s unacceptable, and I urge the administration to halt enforcement of this order until a more thoughtful and deliberate policy can be reinstated."
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.):
Flake publicly opposed the ban in a Medium post on Saturday.
"It’s unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry,” Flake wrote. "Enhancing long term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims."
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.):
In a Twitter post, Amash wrote that "President Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system."
"It’s not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress," he tweeted, before adding that the denial of green card holders is, "particularly troubling."
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.):
Though Sasse agrees with Trump's decision to protect the country's borders, the Post reports, he said that the ban is "too broad."
"If we send a signal to the Middle East that the U.S. sees all Muslims as jihadis, the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims and that this is America versus one religion,” Sasse said. "Our generational fight against jihadism requires wisdom."
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME):
Collins released a statement criticizing Trump's executive order. "A preference should not be given to people who practice a particular religion, nor should a greater burden be imposed on people who practice a particular religion. As I stated last summer, religious tests serve no useful purpose in the immigration process and run contrary to our American values."
Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA):
Comstock wrote that though she believes in “increased vetting based on national security concerns,” she wrote that the President’s executive order “went beyond the increased vetting actions that Congress has supported on a bipartisan basis and inexplicably applied to green card holders, people who are legally within our country who have followed the rules.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC):
McCain and Graham released a joint statement on the immigration ban Sunday, saying that, "Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have serves as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in a country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees ho have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children."
"Ultimately," they continue, "we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism."
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
Portman, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said Trump's new vetting procedure was itself "not properly vetted." In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday, Portman said that while the U.S. does need to "tighten things up," Trump's approach was hasty and inconsistent with American values and national security interests.
“In my view, we ought to all take a deep breath and come up with something that makes sense for our national security and again for this notion that America has always been a welcoming home for refugees and immigrants," Portman said. "In fact, we are more welcoming than any country in the world and we should continue to be so.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
President of the Senate Finance Committee and Utah Senator Hatch, recalled that many of his own ancestors "were themselves refugees, religious minorities violently driven from their homes who undertook a long and dangerous journey to build a new life in a distant land." The Senator urged the Trump administration to "move quickly to tailor its policy on visa issuance as narrowly as possible" and reduce "unnecessary burdens on the vast majority of visa-seekers that present a promise—not a threat—to our nation."
Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.):
Though Heller told the Post that he supports better vetting and border protection, he said he is "deeply troubled by the appearance of a religious ban."
"The use of an overly broad executive order is not the way to strengthen national security," he said. "I encourage the Administration to partner with Congress to find a solution."
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.):
"The president's policy entirely misses the mark," Fitzpatrick said, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Fitzpatrick said that he thinks terrorism inspired by radicalism requires a "comprehensive response," not a "purely regional focus." Though he does think serious actions should be taken to protect the country, "these must not be done in a way that singles out any specific nations or ethnicities," he said.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.):
Shortly after Trump's executive order was announced, Lehtinen said she "objected to the suspension of visas" from the seven countries that are included in the ban. Instead, she suggests that "we could have accomplished our objective of keeping our homeland safe by immediate implementation of more thorough screening procedures," the Miami Herald reports.
"Both the letter and the spirit of the rule of law, on which our liberties rest, require that we honor legal commitments and procedures established by law, including existing visas and approved refugee status, absent specific articulable reasons for reversing a prior decision. The new Administration needs to pay careful attention to crafting orders that honor existing legal commitments and existing law, in contrast to this broad brush approach which doesn't focus on the precise problems," she told the Herald in a statement Saturday.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.):
In a Facebook post, Stefanik wrote that she thinks the country needs to both reform and strengthen its vetting process. However, she opposes Trump'simmigration ban—writing that "On the House Armed Services Committee, I have advocated for Iraqi and Afghans who have served side by side as our allies to be prioritized to access visas. It is Congress' role to write our immigration laws and I strongly urge the President to work with Congress moving forward as we reform our immigration system to strengthen our homeland security."
Cory Gardner (R-Colo.):
Though Gardner said he is supportive of the country's screening processes, "the travel blanket goes too far," he said, according to the Post.
"I also believe that lawful residents of the United States should be permitted to enter the country," he said. "I urge the Administration to take the appropriate steps to fix this overly broad executive order."
Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tex.):
Instead of fighting extremism alone, Hurd stressed that the U.S. should work with its allies.
"This visa ban is the ultimate display of mistrust and will erode our allies' willingness to fight with us," he said. "The ban also provides terrorist with another tool to gain sympathy and recruit new fighters."
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.):
While Lance says the Trump Administration should be concerned about "the security and safety of the American people,” he says the executive order went too far: Lance wrote in a Facebook post that "the President’s current travel ban executive order appears rushed and poorly implemented. Reports of green card holders and those who assisted us in the War on Terror being denied or delayed entry into the U.S. is deeply concerning and must be remedied immediately."
He continued: "It is Congress’ role to amend our immigration laws and I strongly urge President Trump to work with legislators to enact a clear, effective and enhanced vetting and monitoring process."
Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio):
Like many of the other Republicans who oppose the ban, Stivers agrees with Trump that the nation should improve its vetting process. However, he believes that "the executive order risks violating our nation’s values and fails to differentiate mainstream Islamic partners from radical Islamic terrorists—setting back our fight against radical Islam. I urge the Administration to quickly replace this temporary order with permanent improvements in the visa vetting process," he said, according to the Post.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.):
Toomey supports increased vetting, as well as a temporary suspension of "certain individuals from states that sponsor or provide safe havens to terrorists, or are too weak to prosecute terrorists within their borders." However, the senator does think the initial executive order was flawed—saying that it was "too broad and poorly explained."
"This apparently resulted in denied entry into the United States for lawful permanent residents and others who should have been allowed immediate entry," he said, according to the Post.
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.):
While Moran said he supports "thorough" vetting, he does not support "restricting the rights of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents," he said, the Post reports.
"Furthermore, far-reaching national security policy should always be devised in consultation with Congress and relevant government agencies," he said.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/29/donald-tr ... publicans/
No. You're wrong. I did read it.fatbob wrote:You obviously did not read his article confirmed by your statement, I guess if Trump told you to jump in front of a bus you would, your only form of questioning would probably be what colour.
Only 58% of eligible voters voted, 90 million people did not vote, Trump received 28%, Clinton 27% of eligible voters, hardly an accurate indication of what the people wanted.
So Trump believes in the rule of law?Trump’s press secretary makes the case for restricting 5-year-olds coming into the US
On Saturday, a 5-year-old boy whose mother is Iranian was reportedly detained for hours by himself at Washington Dulles International Airport as President Donald Trump’s immigration order was enforced.
Asked on Monday whether Trump’s order — which critics have called a “Muslim ban” — should apply to 5-year-old children, White House press secretary Sean Spicer gave a clear answer: yes.
“That’s why we slow [the process] down a little,” Spicer said at the daily press briefing. “To make sure that if they are a 5-year-old, that maybe they’re with their parents and they don’t pose a threat. But to assume that just because of someone’s age or gender or whatever that they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong.”
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... 5-year-old
Something we know Trump is good at, saying "YOUR FIRED! He's gonna be busy with that:Federal judge in L.A. orders a temporary halt to Trump's travel ban
A federal judge in Los Angeles has added another legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s controversial suspension of travel from a group of predominantly Muslim countries, issuing an emergency order that forbids government officials from enforcing the new rules.
Whether Birotte’s order will have any impact is an open question. A handful of federal judges elsewhere in the country have already issued rulings that blocked aspects of the executive order, but it is unclear whether they have been followed. In one of the rulings, a judge in New York on Saturday ordered a halt to deportations of travelers who arrived at airports with valid visas to enter the U.S. countries. Despite that order, however, reports surfaced in Los Angeles and elsewhere of people being turned back.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... spartandhp
One of Tumps questionable appointees didn't win over all the Republicans:Nearly 1,000 at State Department Officially Dissent on Immigration Order
The number of signatures, if it does total about 1,000, is “unprecedented” and about 20 times the number of dissenters for last year's memo from diplomats sharply criticizing the Obama administration's Syria policy, said former U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford.
But the Dissent Channel memo, a draft of which has been seen by VOA, says the order “will not achieve its aims and will likely be counterproductive.”
White House spokesman Sean Spicer rejected the criticism on Monday, telling reporters that those at the State Department who oppose President Donald Trump's immigration order “should either get with the program or they can go.”
http://www.voanews.com/a/over-a-thousan ... 00399.html
DeVos Nomination in Danger After Collins, Murkowski Defect
Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announced their opposition to President Trump's pick to be the next secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, deeply imperiling her chances of confirmation.
Speaking Wednesday on the Senate floor, Collins said she was "troubled" by DeVos' apparent unfamiliarity with 1975 federal law protecting students with disabilities, along with her lack of experience working in public education had made it impossible for her to support the nomination.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... spartandhp
First it was 2, then it was 20, and later?BigRick808 wrote: 20 out of approximately 300 isn't many.
20/300 .... about 7% again, not many.
Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam
The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.
The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... spartandhp
Study Says White Extremists Have Killed More Americans in the U.S. Than Jihadists Since 9/11
Since 9/11, white right-wing terrorists have killed almost twice as many Americans in homegrown attacks than radical Islamists have, according to research by the New America Foundation.
http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extr ... dangerous/
They could at least make it solar panels rather than a lid.. but of course Trump denies global warming..fatbob wrote:I hope the wall in Mexico gets built, I hear Canada are thinking of building one also, the rest of the world is going to pitch in for a lid.
Trump Pushes Dark View of Islam to Center of U.S. Policy-Making
Mr. Trump was echoing a strain of anti-Islamic theorizing familiar to anyone who has been immersed in security and counterterrorism debates over the last 20 years. He has embraced a deeply suspicious view of Islam that several of his aides have promoted, notably retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, now his national security adviser, and Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s top strategist.
This worldview borrows from the “clash of civilizations” thesis of the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, and combines straightforward warnings about extremist violence with broad-brush critiques of Islam. It sometimes conflates terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State with largely nonviolent groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots and, at times, with the 1.7 billion Muslims around the world. In its more extreme forms, this view promotes conspiracies about government infiltration and the danger that Shariah, the legal code of Islam, may take over in the United States.
Those espousing such views present Islam as an inherently hostile ideology whose adherents are enemies of Christianity and Judaism and seek to conquer nonbelievers either by violence or through a sort of stealthy brainwashing....
“They’re tapping into the climate of fear and suspicion since 9/11,” said Asma Asfaruddin, a professor of Islamic studies at Indiana University and chairwoman of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. “It’s a master narrative that pits the Muslim world against the West,” appealing to Trump supporters who know nothing of Muslims or Islam beyond news reports of terrorist attacks, she said.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... spartandhp
Warning To Iran: White House Puts Iran ‘On Notice’ After Missile Test | NBC Nightly NewsHow war on Islam became central to the Trump doctrine
An apocalyptic view of Islamist terrorism is the thread that connects key figures in the Trump administration and underpins this weekend’s immigration chaos. But is their ramped-up rhetoric just giving terrorists what they want?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... mmigration
A bit on Bannon:Trump to Mexico: Take care of 'bad hombres' or US might
Donald Trump warned in a phone call with his Mexican counterpart that he was ready to send U.S. troops to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them, according to an excerpt of a transcript of the conversation obtained by The Associated Press.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/trump-me ... r-us-might
