Archive for January 29, 2017

Honeymoon’s over: Ex-Obama official Susan Rice calls Trump NSC reshuffling ‘stone cold crazy’

January 29, 2017

Honeymoon’s over: Ex-Obama official Susan Rice calls Trump NSC reshuffling ‘stone cold crazy’, Washington Times, Valerie Richardson, January 29, 2017

susanricecomplainsNational Security Adviser Susan Rice during the daily press briefing in Washington on July 22, 2015. (Associated Press) **FILE**

She also retweeted a message from “Juan, P.E.” that said, “Trump loves the military so much he just kicked them out of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place.”

***************************

It didn’t take long for the old administration to attack the new administration.

Former national security advisor Susan Rice ignited a feud Sunday with the Trump White House by ripping the recent reshuffling of the National Security Council as “stone cold crazy.”

White House spokesman Sean Spicer fired back by calling Ms. Rice’s comments “clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador” and took a swipe at the Obama administration’s track record on national security.

“And when you talk about the missteps made by the last administration, with all due respect, I think Ambassador Rice might want to wait and see how we handle this,” Mr. Spicer said on ABC-TV’s “This Week.”

The back-and-forth came in response to Saturday’s memo placing White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon, the former editor of Breitbart News, on the National Security Council while removing the director of national intelligence and the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff from NSC principals meetings.

“This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy,” Ms. Rice said on Twitter. “Who needs military advice or intell to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan, DPRK?”

She also retweeted a message from “Juan, P.E.” that said, “Trump loves the military so much he just kicked them out of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place.”

Mr. Spicer said reworking the meetings represents an effort to “streamline the process for the president to make decisions on key, important intelligence matters,” insisting that Mr. Trump will receive guidance regularly from top military and intelligence officials in other venues.

“The president gets plenty of information from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He continues to meet with him on a regular basis,” Mr. Spicer said. “He gets briefed by the secretary of defense, but what they have done is modernize the National Security Council so that it is less bureaucratic and more focused on providing the president with the intelligence he needs.”

This wasn’t Ms. Rice’s first attack the Trump administration. Ms. Rice, who served under President Barack Obama for the entirety of his two terms, including four years as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., spent the first week of Mr. Trump’s presidency leveling critiques on Twitter.

“Trashing Trans Pacific Partnership is a big fat gift to China, a blow to key allies, and a huge loss for American global leadership. So sad!” Ms. Rice said in a Monday tweet.

On Mr. Trump’s relationship with Mexico, she said, “Messing with Mexico is stupid and dangerous. Mexico has been key to limiting the flow of Central American migrants to the U.S.”

A few days later, she hit the Trump administration for issuing a Holocaust Memorial Day message that referred to “innocent people” without specifically mentioning Jews, saying, “Just imagine the response if Pres. Obama did that!”

That Ms. Rice would target the Trump White House so quickly represents something of a departure from the traditionally hands-off approach of previous administrations. President George W. Bush was widely praised for refusing to criticize Mr. Obama after he took office.

One week into his successor’s term, Mr. Obama has stayed above the fray, but others close to the former president have felt no such compunction.

His 18-year-old daughter Malia was spotted last week at an anti-Dakota Access pipeline protest during the Sundance Film Festival after Mr. Trump signed a directive to expedite the review process.

Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has been hired by the Democrat-controlled California state legislature to serve as a bulwark against the Trump administration’s policies on issues such as climate change and immigration.

Ms. Rice’s combative stance drew pushback on social media. Not surprisingly, criticism has centered on her five Sunday talk-show appearances blaming the deadly 2012 Benghazi raid on a “hateful” anti-Islam YouTube video.

“Don’t you have some YouTube video you should be basing foreign policy on, has-been?” actor Nick Searcy, who appears in FX’s “Justified,” said in a tweet.

Others have cheered her on. “@AmbassadorRice Please stay active, don’t retreat into prudence and retirement,” said Jorge Guajardo, former Mexican ambassador to China.

Ms. Rice said she also was outraged that Vice President Mike Pence may chair NSC meetings instead of the president. “Never happened w/Obama,” she said.

Before the inauguration, Ms. Rice struck a more cooperative note, insisting she was “rooting hard” for incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

“While it’s no secret that this administration has profound disagreements with the next one, I intend to make myself available to him, just as my predecessors have for me,” Ms. Rice said in a Jan. 10 speech to the U.S. Institute for Peace. “We are all patriots first and foremost. Threats to our security and democracy should be above partisanship.”

Regarding Mr. Bannon’s role on the council, Mr. Spicer said the chief strategist is a former naval officer who has a “tremendous understanding of the world and the geopolitical landscape that we have now.”

“Having the chief strategist for the president in those meetings who has a significant military background to help guide what the president’s final analysis is going to be is crucial,” Mr. Spicer said.

Separating fact from sickening media fiction on Trump’s immigration executive order

January 29, 2017

Separating fact from sickening media fiction on Trump’s immigration executive order, Conservative Review,  Daniel Horowitz, Chris Pandolfo, January 29, 2017

myths-vs-facts-chalkboard

“Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever risque he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.” ~Justice James Iredell, 1799

There is a lot of confusion swirling around the events that transpired this weekend as a result of Trump’s executive order on immigration. Make no mistake: every word of Trump’s executive order is in accordance with statute.

It’s important not to conflate political arguments with legal arguments, as many liberals and far too many “conservatives” on social media are doing.  While the timing and coordination of implementing this order might have been poorly planned, we shouldn’t allow that to undermine the broader need to defend our sovereignty.  For courts to violate years’ worth of precedent and steal our sovereignty should concern everyone.

What the order actually does

Among other things, the key provisions at the center of the existing controversy are as follows:

It shuts off the issuance of all new immigrant and non-immigrant visas for 30 days from the following seven volatile countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Any non-citizen from those seven countries (not “all” Muslim countries) is excluded from entering the country during this time-period (which usually means they won’t be able to board a direct flight to America).  After 90 days, the secretary of state and secretary of homeland security must submit a report to completely revamp the vetting process going forward.

Within 60 days, countries will have to submit any information that the administration determines necessary, pursuant to the findings of this report, in order to adjudicate a visa application and ensure they are properly vetted. Any country that fails to submit this information will not be able to send foreign nationals to our country. All the while, the ban can be extended and expanded at any time.

In addition, the entire refugee resettlement program is suspended for four months pending a complete investigation of the program and a plan to restructure it and prioritize those who are truly in danger of religious persecution. After 120 days, the program may resume, but only for those countries Secretaries Kelly and Tillerson determine do not pose a threat. The program from Syria is completely suspended until the president personally gives the green light.

[T]his was actually a judicious and cautious approach from Trump.

With regards to refugees and those who seek to enter from the seven countries temporarily excluded, the order gave discretion to the State Department and DHS to admit individuals on a case-by-case basis for important reasons, even during the temporary moratorium.

Statement of principles on the right of a country to exclude non-citizens

Those who want to immigrate: There is no affirmative right, constitutional or otherwise, to visit or settle in the United States. Period.

Based on the social contract, social compact, sovereignty, long-standing law of nation-states, governance by the consent of the governed, the plenary power of Congress over immigration, and 200 years of case law, our political branches of government have the power to exclude or invite any individual or classes people for any reason on a temporary or even permanent basis – without any involvement from the courts.[1] Congress has already delegated its authority to the president to shut off any form of immigration at will at any time.

Immigrants already here: Those already admitted to this country with the consent of the citizenry have unalienable rights. They cannot be indefinitely detained. However, they can be deported for any reason if they are not citizens. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), which is still settled law, the court ruled that Congress has the same plenary power to deport aliens for any reason as it does to exclude them and that the statutory procedures and conditions for doing so are due process.[2] Congress has established the process for deportation of those already here.  However, as long as a legal permanent resident leaves the country he has no affirmative right to re-enter.[3] Either way, they have absolutely no right to judicial review other than to ensure that statutes are properly followed.

But can Trump prevent those with green cards from re-entering the country?

The statute is clear as day. The Immigration and Nationality Act (§ 212(f)) gives the president plenary power to “by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants.” Clearly, the president has the authority to block any non-citizen – including refugees, green card holders, and foreign students – from entering the country.  Also, for purposes of deportation, there is no difference between a green card holder or a holder of a non-immigrant visa.  No foreign national who has not yet obtained citizenship has an affirmative right to re-enter the country.

Is this a ban on Muslim immigration?

No, it’s a moratorium on immigration or re-entries from seven individual countries and a temporary moratorium on refugees from all countries, subject to case-by-case exceptions.

Why didn’t Trump place restrictions on immigration/visas from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries?

That’s probably a good idea.  But this was actually a judicious and cautious approach from Trump to start with low-hanging fruit.  These seven countries are failed states or enemies of the U.S. (in the case of Iran).  As such, there is absolutely no way to share data with the host countries and properly vet them.  Somalia has been one of the biggest trouble spots.  The other countries are marred in Islamic civil wars.  Moreover, these are the countries that existing law targets for travel restrictions, and that Obama’s own DHS listed last year.

Why would Trump include green card holders in the ban on re-entry?

Both liberals and conservatives expressed concern over hundreds of individuals going over to fight for ISIS.  We are already limited in how we can combat this growing threat among U.S. citizens.  Given that it is completely legal to exclude non-citizens upon re-entry, Trump extended the ban to legal permanent residents as well.

If a Somali refugee is travelling back to Somalia (so much for credible fear of persecution!), government officials should have the ability to prevent that person from coming back when necessary. Obviously, there are some individuals from these seven countries who already have green cards and we might not want to exclude. That is why the order grants discretion to the State Department to issue case-by-case exemptions for “religious persecution, “or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship.”  A CBP agent is always stationed at any international airport from which these individuals would board a direct flight to the United States (Paris and Dubai, for example). That individual would not allow anyone covered by this ban onto a U.S.-bound flight unless he grants them a hardship exemption.

Indeed, it appears that green card holders returning yesterday from those seven countries were all granted entry.

What’s with the chaos at the airports and the courts?

Henceforth, CBP agents will not allow individual aliens from those seven countries to board a flight to the U.S. So the chaos will end.

The problem arose from the 100 or so individuals that were already in transit when the order took effect. When they arrived at American airports, they were detained at customs. Standing at this point is not tantamount to being on American soil.[4]  However, a federal judge in New York issued a stay and prevented the feds from sending two individuals back on a flight. Other judges have prevented officials from even detaining such persons. It’s unclear if federal agents might have made a mistake and released some of these individuals before ordering them to leave the country. Once they are released onto American soil, any effort to remove them is treated as a deportation, not an exclusion, and is subject to the due process afforded them by congressional statutes (not the Constitution).

Thus, it’s unclear if the stay even applied to any element of the order or whether it applied to anomalous circumstances or particular actions taken by federal officials that overstepped the order.

It’s also confusing because many contemporary judges have no respect for our sovereignty and have been gradually chipping away at the plenary power of Congress (or the president, pursuant to statute) to exclude aliens re-entering the country, despite years of settled law. If courts are indeed violating our sovereignty, this is the very grave danger I warned about in Stolen Sovereignty.  Either way, it should not affect the ability of the administration to enforce the order against those who want to prospectively board flights to return.

“Islam Strengthening in Europe with the Blessing of the Church”

January 29, 2017

“Islam Strengthening in Europe with the Blessing of the Church”, Gatestone InstituteGiulio Meotti, January 29, 2017

These politicians, bishops and cardinals might convince Pope Francis not to abandon Europe, the cradle of Christianity and Western civilization, to a looming dark fate. Michel Onfray wrote at the end of his book: “Judeo-Christianity ruled for two millennia. An honorable period for a civilization. The boat now sinks: we can only sink with elegance”. It is urgent now to prevent that.

There are now many Catholic commentators who are questioning the Church’s blindness about the danger Europe is facing.

“Islam has every chance massively to strengthen its presence in Europe with the blessing of the Church…. the Church is not only leading Europe to an impasse, it is also shooting itself in the foot.” — Laurent Dandrieu, cultural editor of the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles.

“It is clear that Muslims have an ultimate goal: conquering the world…Islam, through the sharia, their law…allows violence against the infidels, such as Christians….And what is the most important achievement? Rome.” — Cardinal Raymond Burke, interview, Il Giornale.

“[T]hey are not refugees, this is an invasion, they come here with cries of ‘Allahu Akbar’, they want to take over.” — Laszlo Kiss Rigo, head of the Catholic Hungarian southern community.

François Fillon published a book entitled, Vanquishing Islamic Totalitarianism, and he rose in the polls by vowing to control Islam and immigration: “We’ve got to reduce immigration to its strict minimum,” Fillon said. “Our country is not a sum of communities, it is an identity!”

Everyone in Italy and the rest of Europe will “soon be Muslim” because of our “stupidity”, warned Monsignor Carlo Liberati, Archbishop Emeritus of Pompei. Liberati claimed that, thanks to the huge number of Muslim migrants alongside the increasing secularism of native Europeans, Islam will soon become the main religion of Europe. “All of this moral and religious decadence favours Islam”, Archbishop Liberati explained.

Décadence is also the title of a new book by the French philosopher Michel Onfray, in which he suggests that the Judeo-Christian era may have come to an end. He compares the West and Islam: “We have nihilism, they have fervor; we are exhausted, they have a great health; we have the past for us; they have the future for them”.

Archbishop Liberati belongs to a growing branch of Catholic leaders who refuse to see the future belonging to Islam in Europe. They speak in open opposition to Pope Francis, who does not seem too impressed by the collapse of Christianity due to falling birth rates, accompanied by religious apathy and its replacement by Islam.

2248Monsignor Carlo Liberati, Archbishop Emeritus of Pompei (left) belongs to a growing branch of Catholic leaders who refuse to see the future belonging to Islam in Europe, and who speak in open opposition to Pope Francis (right).

Pope Francis’s official vision is personified by Bishop Nunzio Galantino, who was appointed by the Pontiff as the Secretary General of Italy’s Bishops. Last December, Galantino gave an interview in which he dismissed any religious motivation behind jihadist attacks and claimed that, instead, “money” is what is behind them.

There are now many Catholic commentators who are questioning the Church’s blindness about the danger Europe is facing. One is the cultural editor of the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles, Laurent Dandrieu, who writes:

“Islam has every chance massively to strengthen its presence in Europe with the blessing of the Church. The Church is watching the establishment of millions of Muslims in Europe… and Muslim worship in our continent as an inescapable manifestation of religious freedom. But the civilizational question is simply never asked …. By breaking away from the Europe’s indigenous peoples and their legitimate concerns, the Church is not only leading Europe to an impasse, it is also shooting itself in the foot”.

Dandrieu lists Pope Francis’ gestures and speeches in favor of Islam and migrants:

“On October 1, 2014, the Pope received Eritrean survivors of a shipwreck off Lampedusa; on 8 February 2015, he made a surprise visit to a refugee camp in Ponte Mammolo, northeast of Rome; on April 18, he used the first official visit of the new Italian president, Sergio Mattarella, to demand ‘a much larger commitment’ for migrants; on 6 September 2015, at the conclusion of the Angelus in St Peter’s Square, he called for ‘every parish, religious community, monastery and sanctuary in Europe to host a family’ of refugees; on March 24, 2016, he chose to celebrate the Holy Thursday in a structure housing 900 refugees, and to wash the feet to twelve asylum seekers; on May 28, he received children whose parents died in a boat that sank, filled with migrants; during the general audience of June 22, Francis went down to the crowd to bring back fifteen refugees”.

But as Liberati’s case demonstrates, resistance to Pope Francis’ vision of Europe is growing inside the Catholic Church.

“It is clear that Muslims have an ultimate goal: conquering the world”, Cardinal Raymond Burke said.

“Islam, through the sharia, their law, wants to rule the world and allows violence against the infidels, like Christians. But we find it hard to recognize this reality and to respond by defending the Christian faith (…) I have heard several times an Islamic idea: ‘what we failed to do with the weapons in the past we are doing today with the birth rate and immigration’. The population is changing. If this keeps up, in countries such as Italy, the majority will be Muslim (…) Islam realizes itself in the conquest. And what is the most important achievement? Rome”.

The first to denounce this dramatic trend was Italy’s most important missionary, Father Piero Gheddo, who said that, due to falling fertility and Muslim fervor, “Islam would sooner rather than later conquer the majority in Europe”. These concerns do not belong only to the Conservative wing of the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna and a candidate tipped to be the next Pope, is very close to Pope Francis, and is a centrist. Last September, on the anniversary of the Siege of Vienna, when Turkey’s Ottoman troops nearly conquered Europe, Schönborn delivered a dramatic appeal to save Europe’s Christian roots. “Many Muslims want and say that ‘Europe is finished'”, Cardinal Schönborn said, before accusing Europe of “forgetting its Christian identity”. He then denounced the possibility of “an Islamic conquest of Europe“.

After a Tunisian, who arrived among a flood of migrants into Germany, murdered 12 people at a Christmas market in Berlin, the Catholic archbishop of the German capital, Heiner Koch, another “moderate” Catholic leader appointed by Pope Francis, also sounded a warning: “Perhaps we focused too much on the radiant image of humanity, on the good. Now in the last year, or perhaps also in recent years, we have seen: No, there is also evil”.

The head of the Czech Roman Catholic Church, Miloslav Vlk, also warned about the threat of Islamization. “Muslims in Europe have many more children than Christian families; that is why demographers have been trying to come up with a time when Europe will become Muslim”, Cardinal Vlk claimed. He also blamed Europe itself for the Islamic takeover:

“Europe will pay dearly for having left its spiritual foundations; this is the last period that will not continue for decades when it may still have a chance to do something about it. Unless the Christians wake up, life may be Islamised and Christianity will not have the strength to imprint its character on the life of people, not to say society”.

Cardinal Dominik Duka, Archbishop of Prague and Primate of Bohemia, has also questioned Pope Francis’ “welcoming culture”.

Among the Eastern Catholic bishops there are many voices raising concerns about Europe’s demographic and religious revolution. One belongs to the leader of the Catholics in Lebanon, who paid an extremely high price for the Islamization of their own country, including murder and exile, and now see the danger coming to Europe itself. “I have heard many times from Muslims that their goal is to conquer Europe with two weapons: faith and the birth rate”, Cardinal Bechara Rai said.

Another voice belongs to the French-born Bishop Paul Desfarges, who heads the diocese of Constantine in Algeria: “It’s no surprise that Islam has taken on such importance”, Desfarges said. “It’s an issue that concerns Europe”. Sydney Cardinal George Pell then urged “a discussion of the consequences of the Islamic presence in the Western world”. Pell was echoed by Laszlo Kiss Rigo, the head of the Catholic Hungarian southern community, who said that “they are not refugees, this is an invasion, they come here with cries of ‘Allahu Akbar’, they want to take over”.

On the political level, there is another a tendency, that of strong Catholic leaders who challenge Pope Francis on the Islamic question and immigration. The most important is the French presidential candidate François Fillon, one of the first politicians who “doesn’t hide the fact that he’s Catholic“. Fillon published a book entitled, Vanquishing Islamic Totalitarianism, and he rose in the polls by vowing to control Islam and immigration: “We’ve got to reduce immigration to its strict minimum,” Fillon said. “Our country is not a sum of communities, it is an identity!”

These politicians, bishops and cardinals might convince Pope Francis not to abandon Europe, the cradle of Christianity and Western civilization, to a looming dark fate. Michel Onfray wrote at the end of his book: “Judeo-Christianity ruled for two millennia. An honorable period for a civilization. The boat now sinks: we can only sink with elegance”. It is urgent now to prevent that.

President Trump’s Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right

January 29, 2017

President Trump’s Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right, PJ MediaDavid P. Goldman, January 28, 2017

terroristpic

The first duty of the U.S. government is to show kindness to prospective American victims of terrorism. And it’s great to have a president with the guts to do something about it.

************************

President Trump kicked over a hornet’s nest by imposing a 90-day ban on immigration from selected Muslim countries in keeping with his campaign pledges. Andrew McCarthy, the federal prosecutor who convicted the blind sheikh and his accomplices of the first World Trade Center bombing, explains why the ban is legal–despite a federal judge’s restraining order against implementation of the order. I’ll leave it to the legal experts to explain why this is yet another outrageous abuse of power by the judiciary.

The legal issues will be sorted out soon enough. It’s the right policy, despite liberal whining and some conservative complaints.

The liberals claim that the immigration halt will convince Muslims that the U.S. administration isn’t fighting ISIS and other terrorists, but Muslims as a religious group. Some conservatives, e.g. Walter Russell Mead, call it “callous.” The latter characterization is misleading. It is callous towards individual Muslims but merciful to American citizens, who have the right to go about their business without fear of mass terrorist attacks. In Europe, the elites accept a certain level of terrorism as the cost of doing business, and the people grudgingly accept it. Americans don’t see why they should sacrifice their safety or sense of security to accommodate the hurt feelings of other people. Prof. Mead compares this to America’s refusal to accept Jewish immigrants during the Holocaust. I respect Mead, but I find the comparison offensive: How many Jewish refugees from Hitler murdered civilians at random (the answer is, not one)?

As for the argument that the measure will alienate Muslims, precisely the opposite is true. Many Muslim governments, institutions, and individuals do not actively support terrorism, but tolerate it. Active terrorists are a small minority, but they swim in a sea of broader Muslim opinion that sympathizes with terrorists like Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

hamas

The last time the Pew Institute surveyed Muslim opinion about Hezbollah and Hamas (in 2010), it found majorities or very large minorities in support of these terrorists in most of the largest Muslim countries. In the United States, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)–founded by the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine–routinely denounces acts of terror on American soil, but has never once criticized Hamas terrorism in the Middle East.

The Obama administration and the Bush administration hoped to persuade Islamist extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is the Palestinian branch) to change their spots and turn peaceful. That didn’t work.

The alternative is to serve notice on Muslim governments: If they don’t crack down on terrorists and their supporters, we won’t let their citizens into the United States until we find ways to vet entrants ourselves.

The terrorists have been winning the intelligence war because a very large number of Muslims fear the terrorists more than they do the counterterrorism efforts of the United States and other Western governments. The terrorists infest Muslim communities and operate like a gangland protection racket. It is dangerous to stand up to them. This will change when Muslims fear the U.S. government more than they fear the terrorists.

Is that cruel? Of course. The world is cruel, but its cruelty is not of our making. The first duty of the U.S. government is to show kindness to prospective American victims of terrorism. And it’s great to have a president with the guts to do something about it.

Trudeau sends Trump a defiant message: “A Canadian is a Canadian”

January 29, 2017

Trudeau sends Trump a defiant message: “A Canadian is a Canadian”, CIJ News, January 29, 2017

(And a rabid dog is a dog. Please see also, Trump bans Canadian/British dual citizens from 7 Muslim countries from U.S. — DM)

The Embassy of Canada in the Washington announced that Canadian passport holders and dual citizens will not be affected by the US President Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” that temporarily bars travellers from seven nations that are known of their support of terrorism or serves as major hubs for terrorist groups.

Trump instructed the security agencies to formulate during the next few months a new policy to ensure a more effective security screening of terrorists and criminals before entering the US.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Trump’s National Security Advisor assured Ottawa that Canadian citizens travelling on Canadian passport will be dealt with in the usual process. In this regard, Trudeau tweeted the following:

Senior officials have been working to seek clarity for Canadians from the US Department of Homeland Security and US Department of Transportation, amongst other counterparts.

I instructed our National Security Advisor, Daniel Jean, who was in touch over the course of the day with NSA Flynn to seek further clarification.

NSA Flynn confirmed that holders of Canadian passports, including dual citizens, will not be affected by the ban.

We have been assured that Canadian citizens travelling on Canadian passport will be dealt with in the usual process.

As we receive new information, we will continue to share on this and other channels.

In an implicit defiant message to Trump’s policy, Trudeau also tweeted “A Canadian is a Canadian” which was one of his slogans during the election campaign and has become an important pillar of his diversity and inclusion-for-all policy. In previous tweets last week Trudeau recommitted to continue welcoming refugees “regardless of your faith” based on the his deep belief that “diversity is our strength” and hailed Canadians who participated anti-Trump rallies.

In a Winnipeg Town Hall on July 4, 2015 Trudeau said the following:

The Liberal Party believes that terrorists should get to keep their Canadian citizenship.’ BECAUSE I DO. And I’m willing to take on anyone who disagrees with that. Because the question is, as soon as you make citizenship for some Canadians conditional on good behaviour, you devalue citizenship for everyone. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Speaking with students from American University in Washington, D.C. on March 11, 2016 Trudeau said the following:

One of the key elements of that [opposing the proposed Quebec Charter of Values] and a point that I am so incredibly proud of Canadians is a moment in our election campaign where the governing Conservatives put forward a proposal to strip and actually [they] enacted it before the election to remove the citizenship from Canadian citizens convicted of terrorism, dual citizens in this case, which quite frankly they thought it is a great idea because here they were, these are people convicted of terrorism against our country or acts of war against our country and they are therefore forfeiting the right to be citizens which seems like a reasonable thing, again. On a front.

But when you actually look at it and realize that means that someone convicted of terrorism with a dual citizenship could have different consequences under the law than a Canadian homegrown terrorist who has Canadian citizenship and is a six generation Canadian and therefore can’t have his citizenship removed at all.

You devalue the citizenship of everyone by making it conditional on good behaviour or non heinous behaviour which is ultimately the same thing.

So, I found my self in a situation on stage against the former Prime Minister [Stephen Harper] arguing that, yes, a man who he [Harper] had just stripped his citizenship of for being convicted of a terrorist act should have his Canadian citizenship restored even though he had literally, perhaps even literally, ripped up his Canadian passport. And yet I stand here as a Prime Minister of Canada.

People are reasonable. People need to understand that the rights and freedoms that keep us free and democratic society aren’t always easy and aren’t always a sort of a knee jerk adapted to how we want the world to be, but they are essential in terms of being the country we are and the people we are.”

 

DHS “will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders” on immigration

January 29, 2017

DHS “will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders” on immigration, Jihad Watch

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

**********************************

“President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.”

Steps to ensure border control and national security shouldn’t be controversial. That the Left is behaving as if they’re the second coming of the Nazi gas chambers shows how hysterical and silly Leftists have become, while their increasingly violent demonstrations show how eager they are to unleash rioting and bloodshed in the streets. I’ve long noted how thuggish the Left was becoming, and that tendency has sharply accelerated since January 20.

trump2-1

“Department Of Homeland Security Response To Recent Litigation,” DHS.gov, January 29, 2017:

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.

Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.

The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

Pseudo-liberal Jews cause great damage

January 29, 2017

Pseudo-liberal Jews cause great damage, Israel Hayom, Isi Leibler, January 29, 2017

We live in a world of chaos and upheaval.‎

Now is the time for all committed Jews to unite, stand together and concentrate primarily on ‎securing their own rights. Diaspora Jews who, from their comfortable armchairs, claim a ‎better understanding than Israelis of what is good for their security, should be treated with ‎contempt. Israel is entitled to expect support from committed Jews over the next few years ‎until it stabilizes its relationship with the world and creates an iron barrier to deter its ‎genocidal enemies.‎

****************************

Chaos is the order of the day throughout the entire democratic world.‎

This has been accelerated by the hypocrisy and intolerance of the vindictive Left, aided and ‎abetted by foolish bleeding-heart pseudo-liberals who have become accomplices in the ‎undermining of democracy.‎

One can understand that many Democrats were incredulous and devastated that Hillary ‎Clinton could be defeated by Donald Trump, whose lack of civility, absence of political ‎experience and coarse language even offended conservatives.‎

But the outpouring of rage, the histrionic protest marches throughout the world, the ‎establishment of committees to impeach Trump — even prior to the traditional 100-day ‎honeymoon period — is unprecedented. Contrary to all the claptrap about democracy that ‎they sanctimoniously preached while in office, leftists are unwilling to accept the fact that their ‎candidate was defeated by a parvenu.‎

The same chaos has swept through Europe, many of whose citizens are revolting against the ‎failure of the Brussels-based European Union bureaucrats to address their needs and above all ‎the collapse in the quality of their lives resulting from millions of so-called refugees flooding ‎their countries.‎

This has led to a rise in global populism, a revival of conservative and right-wing political ‎parties and rejection of the “politically correct” way of life imposed by sanctimonious liberal ‎ideologues.‎

How has this chaos impacted on Diaspora Jews?‎

As history has testified, during periods of stress and anxiety, Diaspora Jews face grave threats. ‎Anti-Semitism, already having reached record levels since the Nazi era, is poised to become ‎even more vicious. That situation has been temporarily muted because the prevailing threat of ‎Islamic fundamentalist terror attacks in many Western nations has directed public anger ‎toward Muslims rather than Jews. This does not apply to Hungary, Greece and Germany.‎

The Jews, as a minority that has suffered tyranny and persecution, would be expected under ‎current circumstances to concentrate primarily on their own security.‎

Ethics of the Fathers quotes Hillel the Elder, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I ‎am only for myself, what am I?”‎

Liberal-inclined Diaspora Jews — especially those lacking an authentic Jewish education — ‎appear to have reversed this dictum. They consider that the well-being of the world and ‎politically correct standards of social values must be their priority — with disregard to the harm ‎this inflicts on them as a community.‎

Observing Conservative and Reform Jewish leaders in the U.S., accompanied by once-‎mainstream liberal Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League and National Council of ‎Jewish Women, at the forefront of hysterical demonstrations accusing Trump of being fascist ‎and encouraging anti-Semitism, it is if they have been possessed by a dybbuk. ‎

The same bleeding hearts in the U.S. as well as those in Europe were at the forefront of calls to ‎open the gates to Muslim “refugees” steeped in anti-democratic behavior and nourished on ‎diets of undiluted, visceral anti-Semitism. Setting aside the question of ISIS terrorist sleeper ‎cells, there is little doubt that these elements will strengthen existing anti-Semitism in the older ‎immigrant Muslim communities that failed to integrate. Yet many Jews are so dismally ignorant ‎and oblivious that they even compare these immigrants to Jews facing annihilation during the ‎Holocaust who were denied haven by other democratic countries.‎

This behavior is even more disturbing at a time of historic opportunities with Trump’s election. ‎

Although by no means yet assured, the U.S., still the only true global superpower, may truly ‎treat Israel as a genuine ally, a move that would be reinforced by an overwhelmingly pro-Israel ‎Congress ‎

Trump has repeatedly proclaimed his determination to reverse former President Barack ‎Obama’s hostile anti-Israeli policy and create a new alliance between the U.S. and Israel that ‎would be sensitive to the security needs of the Jewish state. ‎

His commitment to recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would have more than ‎symbolic value. It would have a major impact in reversing the odious definition of the ‎settlement blocs and even the Western Wall and Temple Mount as occupied territory. Israel ‎could proceed to build homes and the Jewish neighborhoods over the Green Line would ‎prosper. ‎

Furthermore, the U.S. will hopefully no longer acquiesce to the U.N. persecution of Israel and ‎will reject calls to return to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. ‎

Trump is also likely to bring an end to the U.S. component of the scandalous $300 million per ‎annum provided to the Palestinian Authority, much of which is doled out to murderers. ‎

Israel will also have a powerful ally that recognizes Iran as a rogue state and would ‎substantially reduce the genocidal threat from the Iranian Muslim fundamentalists.‎

All this has yet to be delivered but there is no doubt that there is now a window of opportunity ‎which Israel should exploit to dramatically minimize the security challenges and separate from ‎the Palestinians with defensible borders. This can be achieved if Israel now has the support of a ‎U.S. that can be counted on as a true ally. Over the past eight years under Obama, the U.S. ‎dramatically eroded Israel’s diplomatic standing, treated the Jewish state as a pariah and ‎provided incentives to the Palestinians to stall negotiations and engage in terror. With ‎renewed American support, Israel could at long last stabilize itself.‎

There is no disputing that many Democratic Party supporters, including large numbers of Jews, ‎were bitterly disappointed at the election result and were further outraged by Trump’s ‎triumphant and, in their view, divisive inaugural address.‎

But surely it is in the interest of the Jewish community to develop a good relationship with the ‎new administration, especially taking into account the enormous uplift it could provide to the ‎beleaguered Jewish state. Even setting aside his religious Jewish son-in-law, Trump has always ‎been close to Jews and his inner councils incorporate an unprecedented number of passionate ‎religious Zionist Jews. This was highlighted by the honored role of Rabbi Marvin Hier as the ‎first Orthodox rabbi invited to invoke a prayer at the presidential inauguration. ‎

In this context, setting aside individual political beliefs, one must question the legitimacy of ‎those purportedly mainstream Jewish organizational leaders who led the scurrilous accusation ‎of fascism against the new president and the Jewish progressive religious groups calling for ‎mourning and fasting. ‎

One of the main justifying positive elements of progressive Jews was that even if they did not ‎consider themselves obligated to follow Halachah, their activity would ensure that ‎they at least remained within a Jewish framework. What their leaders are doing now is the ‎opposite — encouraging them to take up liberal causes even if it means forsaking Israel, the ‎most fundamental component providing them with a Jewish identity. ‎

They have reversed Hillel’s maxim and act for what they perceive to be the universal needs of ‎humanity, dismissing the interests of their own people. They are undermining themselves as a ‎community and acting as lemmings marching off a cliff to their own destruction. ‎

There is only one example in Jewish history to which such behavior can be compared. The ‎Jewish Bolsheviks also turned against their own people and ultimately the revolution ‎consumed them. Unfortunately, the vociferous anti-Trump Jewish activists are a far ‎greater proportion of the American Jewish community than ‎Jewish Bolsheviks were among Russian Jews.‎

It is clear that in the Diaspora, committed Jews will remain overwhelmingly supportive of Israel ‎while the pseudo-liberal or progressive Jews will become less interested in Israel and ultimately ‎lose their identity. Indeed, Christian evangelicals now play a far greater role in promoting Israel ‎than some of the mainstream Jewish groups. ‎

We live in a world of chaos and upheaval.‎

Now is the time for all committed Jews to unite, stand together and concentrate primarily on ‎securing their own rights. Diaspora Jews who, from their comfortable armchairs, claim a ‎better understanding than Israelis of what is good for their security, should be treated with ‎contempt. Israel is entitled to expect support from committed Jews over the next few years ‎until it stabilizes its relationship with the world and creates an iron barrier to deter its ‎genocidal enemies.‎

Once the threats to the Jewish people have been overcome, we can and will become more ‎directly involved in tikkun olam and fulfilling Rabbi Hillel’s wise advice.‎

Cartoons and Video of the Day

January 29, 2017

My Fair Lady via YouTube

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

no

 

trial

 

H/t Washington Examiner

energisercongress

 

H/t Washington Examiner

trumpagenda

 

Nonsense: Refugees from terror lands are not like Holocaust refugees

January 29, 2017

Nonsense: Refugees from terror lands are not like Holocaust refugees, Israel National News, Jeff Dunetz, January 29, 2017

President Trump on Friday signed sweeping new orders tightening refugee and visa policies including suspending almost all refugee admissions for four months and indefinitely barring entry for some Syrians. Trump said the new measure was intended “to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America.” The executive order also suspends visa entry into the U.S. from seven terror-prone countries: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen.

Liberals of course  are going crazy. They say that Trump created this order because he is Islamophobic. They’ve even come up with a ridiculous comparison, “Anne Frank was a refugee also.” Indeed she was, but the reason for Trump’s action was totally different from the reason Anne Frank and many like her were prevented from coming to the US.

Trump’s executive action was made to prevent terrorists from coming into the United States. FDR prevented refugees from coming into this country because they were Jewish and he thought America didn’t need any more Jews.

In June 2016 then CIA Director Brennan said during congressional hearings that one of the ways terrorists infiltrate western nations is by embedding themselves within groups of refugees.

Brennan explained that ISIL has been recruiting and training westerners to infiltrate their countries of birth and commit terrorist acts. Interestingly, he identifies refugee flows as one of the ways terrorists can infiltrate. That seems to suggest that the United States needs to be very careful who it lets into the country, “which hasn’t been a priority for this administration, but there seems to be one presidential candidate who wants to put a temporary stop to immigration from certain countries that house radical Islamic I mean international terrorists.”

“And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel. Further, as we have seen in Orlando, San Bernardino, and elsewhere, ISIL is attempting to inspire attacks by sympathizers who have no direct links to the group. Last month, for example, a senior ISIL figure publicly urged the group’s followers to conduct attacks in their home countries if they were unable to travel to Syria and Iraq.”

President Trump’s action delays acceptance of refugees until the DHS can figure out how to ensure they’ve kept the embedded terrorists from hiding within the crowds of legitimate refugees. His motivation is to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

In the case of the Holocaust, the Nazi’s weren’t embedding themselves with the Jewish refugees. It wasn’t even suspected. The Jewish refugees were kept out because FDR was a bigot, his hatred of Jews caused thousands to be added to the ranks of Hitler’s victims.

Some point to the fact FDR didn’t bomb and destroy the train tracks that were shipping Jews to the concentration camps. Others say that bombing wouldn’t have prevented anything. The real question needing to be explored is why didn’t FDR allow more Jews into the country? And why didn’t he pressure Britain to allow Jews to move from Nazi controlled areas into what was then called Palestine?

In the book “FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith,” historian Rafael Medoff suggests that Roosevelt failed to take relatively simple measures that would have saved significant numbers of Jews during the Holocaust, because his vision for America was one that had a small number of Jews. In other words, FDR doomed many Jews to suffer not because he wanted them to die, but because he didn’t want more Jews living in his neighborhood.

In a piece for the Brandeis Center, Medoff shared some of the hateful/public anti-Semitic statements Roosevelt made when he let his guard down: 

In 1936, he characterized a tax maneuver by the publisher of the New York Times as “a dirty Jewish trick.” In 1938, FDR privately suggested to Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, one of the era’s most prominent American Jewish leaders, that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were to blame for provoking Antisemitism there.  In 1939, Roosevelt expressed (to a U.S. senator) his pride that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins.”  In 1940, he dismissed pleas for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff.” In 1941, President Roosevelt remarked at a cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon.

The most detailed of FDR’s statements about Jews was made during his meeting on January 17, 1943, in Casablanca, with leaders of the new local regime in Allied-liberated North Africa. U.S. ambassador Robert Murphy remarked that the 330,000 Jews in North Africa were “very much disappointed that ‘the war for liberation’ had not immediately resulted in their being given their complete freedom.”

(Before the war, when the Jews lived under the colonial French regime, they enjoyed rights similar to French citizens. But when the pro-Nazi Vichy French took over the French colonies in 1940, they stripped Jews of those rights. In 1943, upon the defeat of the Vichyites, the Jews had expected their rights would be restored.)

According to the official record of the conversation (later published by the U.S. government in its ‘Foreign Relations of the United States’ series), the president replied that “the number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population,” which “would not permit them to overcrowd the professions.”

FDR explained that his plan “would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc, in Germany, were Jews.” (It is not clear where FDR obtained those wildly inflated statistics.)

Perhaps his distaste for Jews was the reason that, while there were many actions FDR could have taken to stop or slow down the Holocaust, he didn’t.

“He could have quietly permitted the immigration quotas to be filled to their legal limit — that alone would have saved 190,000 lives,” Medoff said.

“He could have pressed the British to open Palestine’s doors to Jewish refugees. He could have authorized the use of empty troop-supply ships to bring refugees to stay in the U.S. temporarily, until the end of the war. He could have permitted refugees to stay as tourists in a U.S. territory, such as the Virgin Islands, until it was safe for them to return to Europe. He could have authorized the bombing of Auschwitz or the railway lines leading to it, which would have interrupted the mass-murder process.”

Asked to respond to the argument that it was better for Roosevelt to focus on winning the war than divert resources to bomb Auschwitz, Medoff said “[b]ombing Auschwitz would not have required any diversion of resources, because U.S. planes were already bombing targets that were less than five miles from the gas chambers, during the summer and autumn of 1944.”

It really goes beyond that. FDR was reluctant to speak out against the impending genocide

On August 25, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt brought her friend Alice Hamilton, who had recently spent three months in Germany, to Hyde Park to give FDR a detailed eyewitness account of German brutality against the Jews. He still refused to publicly criticize Hitler.

On Roosevelt’s most blatant acts of bigotry involved the St. Louis whose story was  told by Pamela Adams at Constitution.com

“On May 13, 1939, the St. Louis set sail from Hamburg, Germany, to Cuba with 937 Jewish refugees on board. Captain Gustav Schroder, a non-Jewish German, was determined to rescue these men, women and children from Nazi Germany. To his dismay, he was forced to return 907 passengers to Europe, landing in Antwerp, Belgium, on June 17, 1939.

“Four months before Hitler invaded Poland, officially starting World War II, Jews were fleeing Germany by the thousands. Captain Schroder agreed to take a shipload on his luxury cruise liner to Cuba. Shortly before leaving, he was informed Cuba rejected most of the visas issued to his passengers. He left with them anyway, praying for a miracle.

“(…) Upon arrival at Cuba, the St. Louis was not allowed to dock. Captain Schroder worked for a week in vain to allow his passengers to disembark. He was denied. Only 22 Jewish refugees were allowed entry as they did have acceptable passage, along with four Spanish citizens and two Cuban nationals. One gentleman, so distraught over returning to Nazi Germany, attempted suicide. He was taken to a hospital in Havana for treatment for his wounds.

“Captain Schroder turned to America, pleading to President Franklin D. Roosevelt for help. Claims of improper paperwork, German Jewish immigration quotas and national security were given as excuses for rejecting the passengers. Afraid Schroder would run his ship ashore in Florida, forcing America to accept the refugees, the Coast Guard was sent to watch the St. Louis as it sailed close to our shores.

“Finding no help anywhere in North America, Schroder was forced to return to Europe. Determined to be the liberator of his remaining 907 passengers (as one person died during the voyage), Schroder refused to return his ship to Germany until all the refugees were given protection in other countries. The United States finally stepped in and helped secure those arrangements in European countries.

“Once those agreements for asylum were made, Captain Schroder docked his boat in Antwerp, Belgium, on June 17th. The United Kingdom accepted 288 passengers while France welcomed 224, Belgium accepted 214, and the Netherlands received 181. In less than a year, Hitler invaded Belgium and France in May of 1940, again threatening those refugees who for a moment had a taste of true freedom. It is estimated that 254 of the 907 returned to Europe were victims of the Holocaust, losing their lives in concentration or internment camps.”

Today the liberals are screaming that any delay or extreme vetting of refugees from those terror-prone countries is an act of Islamophobia, even though CIA Director Brennan said during congressional testimony that refugee flows is one the ways terrorists infiltrate western nations. They are even trying to make the ignorant comparisons between the situation delaying the acceptance of refugees from the terror-prone countries and the barring of refugees from Hitler.

The reason for the delay, announced Friday, was to protect American lives. The Holocaust refugees were kept out because of the bigotry of liberal hero FDR that caused approximately 200K extra Jews die in the Holocaust, because he didn’t want more Jews living in America.

Bottom line: it is pure nonsense, an intellectually dishonest — or at least ignorant — argument to compare the two groups of refugees or the belief systems of the two presidents.

Posted with permission from The Lid.

 

Most Countries Targeted By Trump Have Discriminatory Visa Policies

January 29, 2017

Most Of The Muslim Countries Trump Targeted Have Discriminatory Visa Policies

Ryan Pickrell

6:15 PM 01/28/2017

Source: Most Countries Targeted By Trump Have Discriminatory Visa Policies | The Daily Caller

At least six out of the seven countries targeted by President Donald Trump’s latest executive order have visa policies that discriminate against Israel.

Trump signed an executive order Friday temporarily prohibiting citizens from seven majority Muslim countries — specifically Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen — from entering the U.S.

Of that group, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan all refuse entry to foreign travelers holding passports or travel documents indicating that they have been to or are affiliated in some way with Israel.

Israeli nationals are not permitted to transit through Iraq, IranLibya, Yemen, Syria, or Sudan, even in situations where the traveler does not intend to leave the aircraft.

In Syria, individuals suspected of having affiliations with Israel have been detained for questioning.

These discriminatory visa policies are religiously motivated. Some have arrived at similar conclusions about Trump’s latest executive order, declaring the move a “Muslim ban,” but the order only restricts entry for travelers from a few predominantly-Muslim countries, not all of them.

For instance, the new policies do not apply to citizens of Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population.

The primary focus of Trump’s policies is combating Islamic terrorism.

“We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our countries the very threats that our soldiers are fighting overseas,” Trump said Friday. He stressed that his latest order is designed to “keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America” and “to protect the American people.”

The order aims to eliminate threats to the American populace. Temporarily restricting travel from certain terror-prone countries gives the administration time to establish an improved screening process, what Trump refers to as “extreme vetting.”

The order states that “the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.”

Follow Ryan on Twitter