Trump 9: RESIST!

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm more than a little concerned that Judge Donnelly's name is out there. She's the judge who issued the stay on the refugee deportations. I can see some nutjob Branch Trumpvidians harassing her (or worse). I hope she has some police protection.

[RoseWilder]

Lyft to donate 1 million dollars to the ACLU: 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316729-lyft-will-donate-1-million-to-aclu-after-trump-immigration-ban#.WI4mtRDTr9c.twitter

Quote

The ride-hailing company Lyft is pledging to donate $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in response to President Donald Trump’s immigration ban.

In a letter emailed to customers early Sunday morning, Lyft co-founders John Zimmer and Logan Green announced their decision to donate money to help “defend our constitution.”

The email condemned Trump’s executive order halting the Syrian refugee program and banning entry to all citizens of several Muslim-majority countries.

 

[countressrascal]

As a daughter of a refugee, married to one and have a DIL that is one. Guess what none of these people have nothing but love for USA, and hate for the flaming cheetos. I can tell you stories about the what my husband's family went through to get to the US, by the way they are from one of the banned countries but not Muslim-Jewish. It is not easy. Just for anyone information 70% of all undocumented people that are in the US are people that have over stayed their VISA.

Here is a great article-I just want to know how Jared can sleep at night?

https://www.thenation.com/article/nobody-wanted-to-take-us-in-the-story-of-jared-kushners-family-and-mine/

[RoseWilder]

Damon Silver, policy director and special counsel at the AFLCIO tweeted this: 

This is horrifying. 

[candygirl200413]

They are also going through peoples social media/contacts/etc and I just ugh. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-immigrant-policy-social-media-contacts/index.html

Also to add on great companies as well as starbucks (treating myself to a latte before my GRE exam tomorrow!) and Lyft (taking my home post exam), Air BnB is providing free shelter to those affected from the ban, Netflix spoke against this as well too.

 

Also not Trump News, but a shooting occurred at a mosque in Quebec City, 5 dead

[GreyhoundFan]

Of course, Trumplethinskin slams on John McCain and Lindsey Graham because they dared to disagree with his insane travel ban.  A couple of quotes:

Quote

President Donald Trump enters the second week of his presidency facing a growing political backlash -- with protesters in the streets, lawsuits mounting and his own party fracturing over his executive order banning travel to the United States from seven Muslim-majority nations.

The resistance is offering an early and immediate preview of the dynamics of the Trump presidency: It tests the opposition's strength and durability, the White House's crisis management capabilities and Capitol Hill Republicans' willingness to stomach the controversy that accompanies Trump's efforts to fulfill his campaign promises.

 

Quote

In a joint statement, Arizona Sen. John McCain and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham earlier Sunday had called Trump's travel ban a "self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism."

"This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security," the two said.

Trump lambasted McCain and Graham together in a two-tweet response, writing: "The joint statement of former presidential candidates John McCain & Lindsey Graham is wrong - they are sadly weak on immigration. The two Senators should focus their energies on ISIS, illegal immigration and border security instead of always looking to start World War III."

 

Quote

Already, a federal judge in New York blocked part of Trump's executive order on immigration, ruling that authorities could not remove individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries who had arrived in US airports after the order had been issued. Other judges had ruled against the order, as well.

Sixteen Democratic state attorneys general issued a joint statement calling Trump's move "unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful" and vowing to fight it in court.

The controversy comes the week Trump has said he will announce his choice for a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Democratic House and Senate leaders have planned a protest outside the Supreme Court for 6 p.m. ET Monday.

 

My Senators have published a letter they've sent to DHS about the detained travelers. I hope more Senators and House Members will push back on Drumpf.

Spoiler

January 29, 2017

The Honorable John F. Kelly
Secretary

United States Department of Homeland Security

Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretary Kelly,

On January 27, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States”. The order temporarily halts the entry of all people from at least seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen, suspends the Syrian refugee program indefinitely, and bans the admission of all refugees to the United States for four months.

In the two days since the issuance of the executive order (EO), there has been widespread confusion and distress, as well as the reported detention of legal permanent residents at many major U.S. international airports, including Dulles International Airport in Virginia. Our staffs have worked diligently throughout the weekend to render assistance to distressed families, but it is completely unacceptable that public guidance from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was nonexistent, incomplete or contradictory. We are deeply concerned about the uncertainty posed by this EO, and ultimately its potential to undermine our democracy.

The President stated Friday that his EO is not intended to be a “Muslim ban” or “target Muslims,” and during your confirmation hearing you expressed commitment to protecting religious liberty. However, as issued, the EO indefinitely suspends the Syrian refugee program and pauses immigrant and nonimmigrant entry of people from Muslim-majority countries—actions that run directly counter to our American values. 

To that end, we would like an immediate response to the following questions:

(1)    We request on a daily, ongoing basis a complete list of the names of individuals, and their country of origin, detained at airports in Virginia, as well as the reason for their detention and where they are being held. This list should include individuals detained and subsequently transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.

(2)    On January 29th, DHS issued a press release that appears to be a commitment to disobey orders of federal courts in Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York. In particular it says, it “will continue to enforce” an EO that has been expressly stayed. Will DHS honor the rulings of the Eastern District of Virginia, the Eastern District of New York, and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or will you continue to enforce an executive order that has been expressly stayed?

(3)    What, exactly, are the additional security checks that DHS is claiming are needed before nationals of the identified countries can enter the United States?

(4)    We have a number of specific questions about how, if the temporary restraining orders are lifted and the EO is to be enforced, certain rules and regulations would apply. We understand that DHS issued guidance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), but we have not seen any public copies of that guidance. There are several categories of people affected:

a.       Dual nationals—CBP is applying this EO to “dual citizens” and “dual nationals.” What is DHS’ position on this? We understand that this applies to dual nationals of countries other than the United States. Can you confirm this does not apply to U.S. citizens, even those who are dual citizens of the seven countries?

b.      Lawful permanent residents/green card holders—DHS has stated that it will refuse entry to lawful permanent residents and green card holders who are citizens of these countries. Is that correct, and on what legal basis (meeting with due process requirements) are they doing so?

c.       Pending applicants—The EO states that the Department of State (State) should not issue immigrant visas to applicants to immigrate from abroad. How will the EO affect pending immigrant visa petitions for citizens of banned countries here in the United States eligible to adjust? If immigrant and nonimmigrant visas have already been issued, and those applicants have already gone through stringent criminal and background checks through State, will those visa applicants suffer?

d.      Joining relatives—Will DHS and State consider people coming to join a relative already here (e.g. Syrians applying for L-2s to join an L-1 relative) differently?

e.      Visa holders—With regard to nonimmigrant visa holders, is it the intention of DHS, State, and CBP to revoke nonimmigrant and/or immigrant visas to do an “end run” around the restraining orders?

The broadness of the EO suggests this is a policy targeting Muslims, an approach that national security experts have testified would harm, not help, our national security interests. We join the interfaith community in Virginia and around the country in objecting to these moves, and we will work in Congress to block any effort that trades dubious increases in our national security for certain alienation of partners with whom we must cooperate to address terrorism. We urge you in the strongest terms to provide immediate clarity to Congress and the American people.  

Sincerely,
 

Mark R. Warner

United States Senator

 

Tim Kaine

United States Senator

 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, JMarie said:

Maybe Ivanka really did marry her father after all

http://footwearnews.com/2017/fashion/celebrity-style/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-hands-instagram-silver-dress-photo-fashion-style-304017/

Inbreeding.... because hate is a family value.

27 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

They are also going through peoples social media/contacts/etc and I just ugh. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-trump-immigrant-policy-social-media-contacts/index.html

Also to add on great companies as well as starbucks (treating myself to a latte before my GRE exam tomorrow!) and Lyft (taking my home post exam), Air BnB is providing free shelter to those affected from the ban, Netflix spoke against this as well too.

 

Also not Trump News, but a shooting occurred at a mosque in Quebec City, 5 dead

I hate  having to click "like".  This is horrid news.  I'm clicking like because I'm thanking you for posting this.  The truth needs to be told.

1 hour ago, RoseWilder said:

Lyft to donate 1 million dollars to the ACLU: 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316729-lyft-will-donate-1-million-to-aclu-after-trump-immigration-ban#.WI4mtRDTr9c.twitter

 

Wow.  Damn awesome. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Whip Count: Here’s where Republicans stand on Trump’s controversial travel ban". I don't want to quote because it's lengthy and may change, but the article shows every GOP Senator and Rep and if they oppose, are neutral, or support Trumpenfurher's travel ban. Of course the weaselly Paul Ryan is #1 under support. Asshole.

AND

Rudy just has to stay in the news: "Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’"

Quote

Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”

Giuliani, an early Trump supporter who once had been rumored for a Cabinet position in the new administration, appeared on Fox News late Saturday night to describe how Trump's executive order temporarily banning refugees came together.

Trump signed orders on Friday not only to suspend admission of all refugees into the United States for 120 days but also to implement “new vetting measures” to screen out “radical Islamic terrorists.” Refugee entry from Syria, however, would be suspended indefinitely, and all travel from Syria and six other nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — is suspended for 90 days. Trump also said he would give priority to Christian refugees over those of other religions, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.

“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

It was unclear when the phone call Giuliani took place and when the commission began working. An email to the White House press office was not immediately returned Sunday.

Clips of the exchange between Giuliani and Pirro quickly went viral Saturday night, with some claiming that Giuliani's statement amounted to admitting Trump's intent had been to institute a ban based on religion.

Others, including Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, have insisted it is not a ban on Muslims, but rather one based on countries from which travel was already restricted under Barack Obama's administration.

Priebus appeared on CBS's “Face the Nation” Sunday morning to say it was possible Trump would expand the list of countries included in the travel ban.

“You can point to other countries that have similar problems, like Pakistan and others,” Priebus told host John Dickerson. “Perhaps we need to take it further.”

Priebus also said there had been weeks of work and “plenty of communication” between the White House, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security regarding the ban.

“We didn't just type this thing up in an office and sign up,” he told Dickerson.

Later on the same program, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) called out Giuliani's interview with Pirro from the night before.

“They can't deny that this is a Muslim ban,” Ellison told Dickerson. “On the campaign trail, [Trump] said he wanted a Muslim ban. ... Rudolph W. Giuliani who helped him write it said that they started out with the intention of a Muslim ban and then they sort of 'languaged' it up so to try to avoid that label, but it is a religiously based ban.”

Senate Democrats vowed to draft legislation to block the travel ban.

“We’re demanding the president reverse these executive orders that go against what we are, everything we have always stood for,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a news conference Sunday morning, noting later that his middle name, Ellis, was originally inspired by Ellis Island.

“It was implemented in a way that created chaos and confusion across the country, and it will only serve to embolden and inspire those around the globe those that will do us harm,” Schumer added of the ban. “It must be reversed immediately.”

Trump's executive order sparked massive protests at airports around the country Friday and Saturday, as reports surfaced that dozens of travelers from the affected countries, including green-card holders, were being detained.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Saturday morning challenging Trump’s order after two Iraqi men with immigrant visas were barred from entering the United States at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

As Giuliani was speaking, Fox News simultaneously aired an alert that noted federal judge Ann M. Donnelly had issued a stay to stop the deportations nationwide.

Donnelly wrote that there was a strong likelihood the order had violated the petitioners' rights to due process and equal protection by the Constitution.

“There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order,” Donnelly wrote.

The ACLU hailed the victory.

“Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country,” ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement. “Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court.”

On Sunday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying it did not plan to back off enforcing Trump's orders.

“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,” the statement read. “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.”

The department said that less than 1 percent of daily international air travelers to the United States had been “inconvenienced” on Saturday.

Matthew Kolken, an immigration attorney based in Buffalo said there has been “a systemic bias against individuals from Muslim countries in the U.S. immigration departments” for years, including under the Obama administration.

“This isn't unprecedented,” Kolken told The Washington Post by phone Sunday. “The unfortunate reality is the executive branch does have vast discretionary authority to determine who they are going to [allow in or not].”

Still, Kolken said, he believes “Trump has gone a step further without a doubt” in including even people who are lawful permanent residents and suspending all immigration applications from people from the seven countries on the banned list.

If there was evidence of disparate treatment of individuals from the same country — if there were anecdotal evidence of, for example, a Syrian family of one religious background allowed to enter over that of another religious background — then that is where lawsuits could come into play, he said.

“The question becomes whether they're trying to do an end-around by couching the ban as a country-specific ban based on a security-related issues when in reality it's a religious ban,” Kolken said.

 

I don't know about you, but it sure seems to me like they just typed it up and signed up, despite what Rancid Penis says.

[loveformusic]

In case anyone hasn't seen this morning's interview of Chris Wallace with KellyAnne...

Her voice alone really gives me a headache, but after watching the entire interview, I think that's been upgraded to a migraine. "I haven't slept in for months" - aww...wait, nope - don't feel sorry for her one bit!

I'd also grab myself a cup of Starbucks, just for their support alone, throughout everything as well...too bad I don't like coffee. I'm not human, I know.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/29/news/companies/starbucks-hiring-refugees/

[GreyhoundFan]

@loveformusic I can't watch it because I'll put my fist through my laptop screen. I have a solution for Kellyanne Conjob -- if she'd quit, it would be a win-win: she could get some sleep and we wouldn't have to see or hear her anymore.

[RoseWilder]

34 minutes ago, loveformusic said:

I'd also grab myself a cup of Starbucks, just for their support alone, throughout everything as well...too bad I don't like coffee. I'm not human, I know.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/29/news/companies/starbucks-hiring-refugees/

I don't like coffee either. But Starbucks has fantastic Triple Chocolate Chunk Cookies!  I think I might need to go buy one!

33 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

@loveformusic I can't watch it because I'll put my fist through my laptop screen. I have a solution for Kellyanne Conjob -- if she'd quit, it would be a win-win: she could get some sleep and we wouldn't have to see or hear her anymore.

Amen to that. 

Every time I look at one of the members of Trump's inner circle, I'm reminded that being evil does something to a person's appearance. Kellyanne Conway, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, they all look rough. Really rough. Woke up in jail after a three day bender kind of rough. 

[47of74]

I saw on the twitters that there's a new nickname for Conjob....#NaziBarbie

[RoseWilder]

This is horrifying: 

I'm so glad to see my fellow citizens are fighting back against the vile things the Trump administration is trying to do: 

 

[Smash!]

11 hours ago, FrumperedCat said:

Over here we have the option of filing petitions to the government, and if they reach 100,000 signatures they consider debating it in parliament.

Right now there's one going with the aim of rescinding the state visit offer made to Trump by the Queen due to this whole fiasco. Currently it has 782,000 signatures and the numbers going up by hundreds every minute. I literally don't think I've seen a more popular petition and i'm so pleased to see so many people agreeing!

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928

Already over 1 Million signatures!!!

As to the companies claiming they would hire refugees/donate money: I'm actually a bit sceptic. I mean, is there proof that they really do what they say? Otherwise it's really good advertisement for them because they know people would support them, as seen in this thread with Starbucks.
Just some thoughts.

[RoseWilder]

Interesting. I think I'll be sharing this all over social media today: 

If you live in Senator Duckworth or Senator Durbin's district today, you might want to call or email them to thank them for taking a stand: 

 

[Dark Matters]

Re: the UK petition, the govt doesn't seem to want to deal with it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38788388

Gotta save face ya know.  (Wonder how much power, if any, the Queen would have if she wanted to keep Trump out)

 

And in other news, the mosque that burned down in Texas has had $600,000 in donations for rebuilding so far.  Plenty of good, sane people still in this country.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/americans-raise-600000-to-rebuild-burned-texas-mosque/

[Penny]

Woke up this morning and turned on the TV. Kellyanne was on the TV and being semi awake, all I could think was can she ever just answer a question with a yes or no? She is a Trump clone and can only answer a question with minutes of nonsense. 

---

 

[47of74]

Goggle had a thing honoring Fred Korematsu on today.  He was someone who decided not to take the Japanese internment lying down.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Korematsu

Quote

Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu (是松 豊三郎 Korematsu Toyosaburō?, January 30, 1919 – March 30, 2005) was an American civil rights activist objecting to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Shortly after the Imperial Japanese Navy launched its attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which authorized that all individuals of Japanese ancestry were to be removed from their homes and forced to live in internment camps, but Korematsu instead challenged the orders and became a fugitive.

The legality of the internment order was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, but Korematsu's loss of his civil action against the United States Government was overturned decades later after the disclosure of new evidence challenging the necessity of the internment, evidence which had been withheld from the courts by the U.S. government during the war.

To commemorate his journey as a civil rights activist, the "Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution" was observed for the first time on January 30, 2011, by the state of California, the first such commemoration for an Asian American in the United States. In 2015, Virginia passed legislation to make it the second state to permanently recognize each January 30 as Fred Korematsu Day.[1][2][3]

The Fred T. Korematsu Institute was founded in 2009 to carry on Korematsu's legacy as a civil rights advocate by educating and advocating for civil liberties for all communities.

It's so sad that Orange Shithead and his groupies area all repeating history again and going to the bathroom all over Mr. Korematsu's legacy.

[Terrie]

If, like me, you have relatives backing Trump's "It's just what Obama did" stuff, here's a breakdown of what's different on the two major talking points.

1) The list of of countries: Yes, Trump lifted the list of countries of "current concern" from a bill Congress passed and Obama signed (It's not "Obama's list"); however, the bill did not cite Sept. 11 attacks on WTC and Pentagon as a reason for the action, so it's legit to ask why the countries of origin for the Sept. 11 attackers were not added.

2) Obama stop visas for 60 days back in 2011: Yes, Obama did have the government stop processing refugee applications from Iraq for 60 days in response to a finding that 2 Iraqi refugees had terrorist ties. However, all visas already issued were honored, it did not apply to green card holders and it was in response to a specific incident. No one was detained or deported. Meanwhile, Trump's order has resulted in children being detained for hours. 

[Howl]

Two mosques have burned in January here in Texas.  The first was Islamic Center of Lake Travis, just west of Austin.  The mosque was under construction;  the shell was built and enclosed, but no electrical was in place and no obvious reason for a fire to start.  The fire consumed the entire structure. 

The second is the fire in Victoria, referenced upthread in a post by @Dark Matters. Victoria is a fast-growing city of 65,000 in southeast Texas, deeply conservative and hard core Christian for the most part.   A  family member lives about 20 miles away; it's where they do shopping and medical. There are plenty of immigrants there, particularly doctors and other medical professionals, hence the need for a mosque.  

Both fires started at night and were discovered and reported to police between 2 am and 3:30 am.  In both instances, people associated with the mosques refused to speculate that the fires were set deliberately.  In both instances, BATF and state fire officials were called in to investigate. 

Geographically, the fires were about 150 miles apart. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Good grief: "Unnamed White House official on implementing travel ban: ‘It really is a massive success story.’"

Spoiler

Two days into President Trump's new ban on refugees, migrants and foreign nationals from seven countries, there was still mass confusion about the details. On Sunday evening, the White House organized a briefing for reporters with two senior administration officials who agreed to explain the president's executive order — but only on the condition of anonymity.

One senior administration official explained the ground rules to reporters gathered at the White House and listening on a conference call, then said: “With that, I'll turn it over to a senior administration official.”

“Thank you,” the other senior administration official said before beginning a 45-minute defense.

Their overarching message: Everything is going exactly according to plan, nothing has changed since the order was signed, and the news media need to calm down their “false, misleading, inaccurate, hyperventilating” coverage of the “fractional, marginal, minuscule percentage” of international travelers who have been simply “set aside for further questioning” for a couple hours on their way into the greatest country in the world.

“It really is a massive success story in terms of implementation on every single level,” the administration official said at one point.

The administration official said the order was drafted with help from “several of the top immigration staff on Capitol Hill,” then was approved by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and reviewed by some government agencies. The White House purposely implemented the ban with no warning because “everybody here can use their imaginations to imagine 25 reasons that wouldn't make sense from a security standpoint, a management standpoint, from just an airport-safety standpoint, you name it,” the senior administration official said. (The other senior administration official jumped in at one point to make clear that the order “isn’t willy-nilly.")

There had been some confusion about how legal permanent residents — also known as green-card holders — would be treated under this new order. On Saturday, this same senior administration official told reporters that if a green-card holder from one the seven targeted countries is currently elsewhere in the world, that person would need to apply for a case-by-case waiver before returning to the United States. But then on Sunday morning, the president's chief of staff went onto a morning news show and said that the executive order “doesn’t affect them.”

“Nothing has changed,” the senior administration official explained, claiming that the White House has provided clear instructions from the beginning on how green-card holders should navigate the system. These green-card holders are “exempt” from the new restrictions, the senior administration official said.

A reporter jumped in: “That's different from what you said when we were in here yesterday, right?”

“No,” the senior administration official said.

“Do you want me to pull the quote?” the reporter said.

“You can do whatever you want,” the official said.

The official then explained that green-card holders are exempt because they can apply for and receive a waiver. As of Sunday afternoon, 170 legal permanent residents had applied for waivers to avoid the new restrictions and all 170 had been granted those waivers.

“Some of the confusion stemming from the green-card issue is just semantic in nature,” the senior administration official said. “I think some of the confusion stems from the semantic debate about the meaning of the word 'exemption.' Again, internally, we've been clear on this from the beginning, and we've waived people through.”

Plus, the senior administration official said, the number of people who have to deal with these new restrictions is “a fractional, marginal, minuscule percentage” of the approximately 325,000 residents of other countries who arrive in the United States each day. During the first 24 hours that the executive order was in place, 109 people were “set aside for further questioning,” a situation that many others would describe as being detained by authorities.

“In terms of the operation of the executive order, at the implementation level, it has been done seamlessly and with extraordinary professionalism,” the senior administration official said at one point, later adding that these changes have been implemented with “minimal disruption for other travelers.”

A reporter asked the senior administration official to respond to Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and said Sunday: “We all share a desire to protect the American people, but this executive order has been poorly implemented, especially with respect to green card holders.” The senior administration official said the senator presumably misunderstands the order.

“He might have read one of CNN's stories,” the senior administration official said. “And, for that, the only responsible party would be CNN.”

After another jargon-filled explanation of how everything is working the way it should, the senior administration official noted that “processes for travel are always evolving” and that “travel is proceeding as it should for those who should be traveling.”

“The important thing to keep in mind is that the United States runs the largest immigration system in the world,” the senior administration official said. “We have about 80 million people, give or take a few million, that enter the United States through an air, land or sea port in a given year. The complexity and scope and reach of the immigration system is beyond imagination and, then again, there's sort of a strange irony — I don't know if irony is the right word — but there's something immensely disproportionate about people protesting that this year 79,999,900 or whatever will be processed through instead of the 80 million. I mean, you're talking about letting in more people than the size of almost every country on earth every single year.”

The current immigration system is “woefully inadequate” and if it's not changed, the senior administration official warned that it could lead to “the kind of large and permanent domestic terror threat that becomes multidimensional and multi-generational and becomes sort of a permanent feature, in this case, it would become a permanent feature of American life.”

“We don't want a situation where 20, 30 years from now, it's just like a given thing that on a fairly regular basis that there's domestic terror strikes, that stores are shut up or that airports have explosive devices planted or people are mowed down in the street by cars and automobiles and things of that nature,” the senior administration official said. “These are the realities that we're living in today.”

The senior administration official said that the administration still wants to welcome new people “who truly believe in the American values that we all hold dear,” but that it's the federal government's right to exclude those who would “not be able to be faithful to our tolerant way of life.”

“Now, I don't want to get into a long debate or to distract from what we're all discussing,” the senior administration official said, “but I think that it's reasonable to say that you have to take a holistic look at applicants and that you could argue that if you admit say 50 people who aren't themselves terrorists but maybe who have sympathetic attitudes toward terrorists or who believe that there's an appropriate place for terrorism, that creates an environment where it's easy to radicalize people and to spread radical views and ideologies and, ultimately, to inculcate terrorism. ... You're removing a lot of the networks in which radicalization can take root and then at that point, again, become multi-generational.”

At one point, the other senior administration official jumped in to explain the ban in another way: “What would you rather have: Somebody delayed for a little while because we're taking the proper precautions... or a family member killed” in a terrorist attack. “Which one would you choose?”

The other senior administration official added this thought: “If I was welcomed to a new country and then just asked to wait for a few hours to have the review done, I wouldn't consider it a great injury.”

A few minutes later, as the questions continued, the senior administration official tried to make this point again: “You have a hundred people who are given the greatest benefit imaginable, which is to spend time or to live permanently in the United States, but had to go through a little bit of extra delay. I want to make a point that — and I mean this very sincerely — which is that the United States chose not to be rigorous with respect to its immigration laws before Sept. 11, and 3,000 people were murdered. The United States chose not to be rigorous with its immigration law when the San Bernardino bride came in on a fiancee visa and 14 people were gunned down. ... And so on and on the examples go.”

A reporter pointed out that none of the home countries of those terrorists are included in the list of seven countries that the administration is targeting.

“If people in the media would like to recommend additional countries to be added, you can send us your suggestions,” the senior administration official said. “The point that I am making is that we are putting in place over the next 90 days procedures to try to prevent those things from happening. ... I think it's important to keep in mind the job of the president is to protect the lives of American citizens, and the job of the media is to report fairly.”

The other senior administration official then jumped in and ended the briefing.

These people lie so much, they should all be called Pinocchio.

On another note: "Trump transition leader’s goal is two-thirds cut in EPA employees"

Spoiler

The red lights are flashing at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The words of Myron Ebell, the former head of President Trump’s EPA transition team, warn employees of a perilous future. Ebell wants the agency to go on a severe diet.

It’s one that would leave many federal employees with hunger pains, and jobless too.

Ebell has suggested cutting the EPA workforce by 5,000, about a two-thirds reduction, over the next four years. The agency’s budget of $8.1 billion would be sliced in half under his prescription, which he emphasized is his own and not necessarily Trump’s.

“My own personal view is that the EPA would be better served if it were a much leaner organization that had substantial cuts,” he said in an interview. Ebell is director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a small-government think tank where he pushes the notion of “global warming alarmism” and against the science that says it’s a crisis. He acknowledges cutting 10,000 staffers might not be realistic, yet he sees that as an “aspirational goal. … You’re not going to get Congress to make significant cuts unless you ask for significant cuts.”

One reason he favors such drastic cuts is that what he calls EPA’s “regulatory overreach” would be much harder “if the agency is a lot smaller.” EPA officials did not respond to a request for comment, but a union leader did.

J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents EPA workers, said slashing staffing makes sense only if a safe environment is no longer important. “If Congress wants to repeal laws that are enforced by the EPA, arbitrarily cutting the workforce … isn’t the way to do it,” Cox said. “If lawmakers decide that clean air and water isn’t a priority and vote to repeal those laws, then cutting the EPA workforce will be justified.”

Although Ebell was speaking on his own, his views are worth noting because they seem in line with plans by Trump and congressional Republicans to cut domestic spending and Trump’s directives to freeze federal hiring and reduce government regulations.

Furthermore, Ebell’s selection as head of the EPA transition team was an indication of the agency’s likely direction under Trump, as is the president’s pick for the agency’s administrator.

The first line of a 2011 article by Ebell said, “The global warming fad is waning.” Ebell wrote that “complementing the weak scientific case for alarm, many people have realised that warmer climates are more pleasant and healthier.” After Trump’s electoral college victory in November, another Ebell article said former president Barack Obama’s climate change actions “pose a grave threat to our economy and especially to the health and well-being of poor people.” A transition team news release quoted Trump saying EPA had “an out-of-control anti-energy agenda.”

We don’t need Ebell or the transition team to know Trump’s thoughts on global warming and other agency policies. He’s repeatedly called climate change a hoax. Scott Pruitt, his choice to run the agency, used much of his time as Oklahoma attorney general fighting the agency on a variety of issues. In a September interview with The Washington Post about attempts to cut carbon emissions by regulating power plants, Pruitt said EPA actions were “entirely inconsistent with its constitutional and statutory authority.”

But Ebell’s thoughts on agency size and staffing are instructive.

Under Obama, the EPA described its actions to reduce power plant and vehicle pollution as “bold and achievable steps” to fulfill its statutory obligation. In the 2011 article, Ebell used similar language to describe proposals to abolish the EPA as “bold and visionary.”

Bold? Yes. Visionary? Only if declaring EPA headquarters a hazardous waste site is part of the vision.

Because of expected domestic spending reductions under Trump, Ebell said “EPA is looking at a significant cut every year for the duration of the Trump administration.” And because Trump plans to keep grants to the states for environmental infrastructure, like water treatment plants, which amount to about half of EPA’s budget, Ebell said, “I don’t see any way you can make those (other budget) cuts without reducing the number of employees.”

If Ebell’s prescription is filled, it “would cripple environmental protection across-the-board, putting at risk the health and well-being of every man, woman and child in our country,” said Scott Slesinger, legislative director of the National Resources Defense Council. “We’d face greater exposure to contaminated drinking water, toxic air pollution, unsafe pesticides, stalled Superfund cleanups, hazardous oil and waste spills and a host of other dangers — not the least of which is dangerous climate change.”

For employee advocates, EPA staffing cuts would be one more front in what is shaping up to be a long and protracted struggle with the Trump administration.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is getting ready.

“At PEER, we are reviewing reduction-in-force and other rules governing the fate of employees squeezed out by tightened purse strings,” Jeff Ruch, PEER’s executive director of PEER, said as the organization arranges to divert staff and funds to assist EPA employees confronting termination.

“We are preparing to transform our organization into a civil service MASH unit,” Ruch added, “should the worse befall.”

We all have been warned.

I think the last line is so true: "We have all been warned."

[clueliss]

I posted this in the DeVoss thread.  Cross posting here.  Vote on Betsy is delayed.  Fire up the phones.

This was on my Facebook Feed this morning.  Fire up the phones etc folks.

 

The vote to confirm Betsy DeVos as Sec of Education was delayed due to outpouring of resistance. The hearing will now be held at 10 a.m. Jan. 31 so that Republicans have more time to garner votes. So if you have a strong opinion on this, you can take action by doing the following:
Please call one of the following Republican Senators (key in the confirmation vote) to express your opinion on the appointment. At least 3 of these senators need to be convinced in order to block DeVos' nomination.
Don't email. Don't tweet. Please call them!
Then, PLEASE SHARE WIDELY:
If you live in one of the states represented below, PLEASE call YOUR Senator. If you don't, pick one and call them
Susan Collins (ME) 207.622.8414..&..202.224.2523
Lamar Alexander (TN) 615.736.5129..&..202.224.4944
Lisa Murkowski (AK) 907.586.7277..&..202.224.6665
Johnny Isakson (GA) 770.661.0999..&..202.224.3643
Orrin Hatch (UT) 801.524.4380..&..202.224.5251
Richard Burr (NC) 336.631.5125..&..202.224.3154..&.. 910.251.1058..&..828.350.2437
Michael Enzi (WY) 202.224.3424
Dr. Bill Cassidy (LA) 202.224.5824
Pat Roberts (KS) 202.224.4774
Tim Scott (SC) 202.224.6121
Rand Paul (KY) 202.224.4343

I'm taking aim as a former Kansan who is the guardian/conservator of a Kansan at Roberts.  

 

http://networkforpubliceducation.org/2016/11/tell-your-senator-to-vote-no-for-betsy-devos/

Form emails at the above link.  

[louisa05]

So the chaos in airports is the fault of Delta & Schumer. Don't blame the Tweeter-in-Cihief; it was nothing he did.

Classic NPD. My sis-in-law's coffee business is tanking because if Starbucks (nearest location is 30 miles away) and a manicurist who did not like something, not because she now only opens it for 12 hours a week

[GreyhoundFan]

Interesting article: "Senate Democrats have the power to stop Trump. All they have to do is use it."

Quote

As a Democratic Senate aide for the past seven years, I had a front-row seat to an impressive show of obstruction. Republicans, under then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, decided they would oppose President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at every turn to limit their power. And it worked: They extorted concessions from Democrats with threats of shutdowns, fiscal cliffs and financial chaos. I know firsthand that Democrats’ passion for responsible governance can be exploited by Republicans who are willing to blow past all norms and standards.

Now we have a president who exemplifies that willingness in the extreme. Partly, this explains why he faces more questions about his legitimacy than any president in recent history and why he drew three times as many protesters as inauguration attendees last weekend. But in something of a mismatch, Republicans’ unified control of government means that the most effective tool for popular resistance lies in the Senate — the elite, byzantine institution envisioned by the founders as the saucer that cools the teacup of popular opinion.

Senate Democrats have a powerful tool at their disposal, if they choose to use it, for resisting a president who has no mandate and cannot claim to embody the popular will. That tool lies in the simple but fitting act of withholding consent. An organized effort to do so on the Senate floor can bring the body to its knees and block or severely slow down the agenda of a president who does not represent the majority of Americans.

The procedure for withholding consent is straightforward, but deploying it is tricky. For the Senate to move in a timely fashion on any order of business, it must obtain unanimous support from its members. But if a single senator objects to a consent agreement, McConnell, now majority leader, will be forced to resort to time-consuming procedural steps through the cloture process, which takes four days to confirm nominees and seven days to advance any piece of legislation — and that’s without amendment votes, each of which can be subjected to a several-day cloture process as well.

McConnell can ask for consent at any time, and if no objection is heard, the Senate assumes that consent is granted. So the 48 senators in the Democratic caucus must work together — along with any Republicans who aren’t afraid of being targeted by an angry tweet — to ensure that there is always a senator on the floor to withhold consent.

Because every Senate action requires the unanimous consent of members from all parties, everything it does is a leverage point for Democrats. For instance, each of the 1,000-plus nominees requiring Senate confirmation — including President Trump’s Cabinet choices — can be delayed for four days each.

While the tactic works well, as we’ve seen for the past eight years, there remains the question of strategy. Should Democrats be pragmatic and let Trump have his nominees on a reasonable timetable, so as not to appear obstructionist? So far, this has been their approach to some of Trump’s Cabinet picks.

But it’s also fair to say that, by nominating a poorly qualified and ethically challenged Cabinet, Trump forfeited his right to a speedy confirmation process, and Democrats should therefore slow it down to facilitate the adequate vetting that Trump and Senate Republicans are determined to avoid by rushing the process before all the questionnaires and filings are submitted. Four days of scrutiny on the Senate floor per nominee, even after the committee hearings, is a reasonable standard for fulfilling the Senate’s constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.

Democrats can also withhold their consent from every piece of objectionable legislation McConnell tries to advance. With 48 senators in their caucus, they have the votes to block most bills. But even when Democrats don’t have the votes, they can force McConnell to spend time jumping through procedural hoops. This is the insight McConnell deployed against Reid to manufacture the appearance of gridlock, forcing him to use the cloture process more than 600 times.

Finally, Democrats can withhold their consent from Trump until they feel confident that foreign governments are not interfering in our elections. Credible reports hold that U.S. intelligence agencies are investigating whether Trump’s campaign cooperated with the Russian government on Vladi­mir Putin’s personally directed meddling. Withholding consent from Trump’s agenda until an independent, bipartisan probe provides answers is not just reasonable; it’s responsible. If Democrats withhold consent from everything the Senate does until such a process is established, they can stall Trump’s agenda and confirmation of his nominees indefinitely. Sen. Richard Durbin has been a leader in demanding an independent investigation. But unless Democrats back their calls with the threat of action, McConnell will steamroll them and never look back.

Of course, it would be unwise to deploy this strategy blindly. The kind of universal obstruction pioneered by McConnell during Obama’s presidency is not in Democrats’ nature: They believe in the smooth functioning of government.

But Democrats’ concern with delivering results for their constituents is also part of who we are and something we should embrace. Even for innately cautious Democrats, some issues demand dramatic action. If Trump wants to put their concerns about his legitimacy to rest, he can reach out with consensus nominees and policies, and come clean about his ties to Russia and his tax returns (which may show whether he has compromising financial debts to Russian interests). Until then, Democrats can stand up for America by withholding their consent.

 

 

I agree that this tactic shouldn't be used blindly, or the Democrats will become villains, but it could tie up some of the worst crap in the lengthy procedures.

[3arrowsandnotcounting]

Dear FJ friends,
I'm writing to you from a small town in Australia. I have been following the last few threads with a growing feeling of alarm and a sense or surrealism. How can this be reality with Donald Trump as president of the US? Surely this is some kind of nightmare. If this is how I'm feeling, I can only imagine how you all living in America are feeling about this petulant child living in the Whitehouse. Know that you are not alone, people all over the world are with you in standing against the trumplethinskin regime. The only way for evil to prevail is for the righteous to stay silent. You are the righteous, you are the resistance. I'm sorry I don't have anything informative to add, but I just want you all to know that the world is watching and many are applauding your efforts and resistance.