Wednesday, February 1, 2017

She Wouldn’t Listen: Trump Fires Acting AG for Doubting Traveler Ban

She Wouldn’t Listen: Trump Fires Acting AG for Doubting Traveler Ban

Sally Q. Yates 
Sally Q. Yates
Photo Credit: U.S. Government via Wikimedia

On Monday afternoon Sally Q. Yates, President Barack Obama’s Deputy Attorney General who was supposed to serve as interim head of the office until Congress confirmed President Trump’s nominee, wrote Justice Department lawyers that “at present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.” By “these responsibilities” she meant defending the new president’s ban on travelers from seven Muslim countries, and by “executive order” she meant the law of the land as dictated by the same new president.
At 9:15 PM, according to the NY Times, Yates received a hand-delivered letter signed by White House aide John DeStefano, telling her “the president has removed you from the office of Deputy Attorney General of the United States.”
Then, at 9:17 PM by the NY Times’ clock, and in typical Trump fashion, White House press secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement saying, “Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.”
He had us at “Obama administration appointee.”
A little earlier, at 9 PM, Dana J. Boente, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was sworn in as Yates’ replacement, but not before he reportedly pledged to “defend and enforce the laws of our country.”
Turns out this part is crucial for the US Attorney General. Who knew?
Everyone was citing the October 20, 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, at the height of the Watergate scandal, when President Richard Nixon’s fired independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, which was followed by the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Not an accurate comparison, other than the fact that it involved firing a lawyer. The “massacre” was begun by a desperate president was fighting for his political life, while the Yates firing was done by an enormously confident president who sent home a subordinate for refusing to carry out her assignment.
Incidentally, Yates confessed that she had considered resigning as soon as she heard about the traveler ban last Friday, but, as she told her colleagues, she felt sorry for her replacement who would have to face the same unpleasant job. So now that part was taken care of. Dana Boente, a 31 year veteran with the Justice Department, reportedly “had no hesitation about accepting the acting attorney general’s job given his ‘seniority and loyalty’ to the department.”
Or, as a spokesman for the United States attorney’s office put it, Boente told the White House that he is willing to sign off on Trump’s executive order on refugees and immigration.
Case closed.
David Israel
About the Author: David writes news at JewishPress.com.

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.
at

Majority of Americans Support Temporary Ban on Visitors from Terror Strongholds

Home » News & Views » Israel » Government »

Majority of Americans Support Temporary Ban on Visitors from Terror Strongholds

The Department of Homeland Security says it will 'continue to enforce all of the president's Executive Orders."
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer 
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer
Photo Credit: WhiteHouse.gov / screenshot

Believe it or not, despite all the protests and photo ops and political maneuvering going on, most American voters agree with President Donald Trump’s temporary suspension of entry to the U.S. for visitors from seven Muslim-majority nations.
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey, 57 percent of “likely U.S. voters” favored a temporary ban on refugees from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for the next 90 days. Ten percent were undecided and 33 percent were opposed to the ban.
Along the same vein, 56 percent favored a temporary ban on visas blocking residents of those countries from entering the U.S., until the government comes up with a better way to screen for terrorists. Eleven percent were undecided on this question, and 32 percent were opposed.
The poll was conducted on January 25-26 by Rasmussen Reports, a conservative American polling firm based in Asbury Park, New Jersey, founded in 2003 by Scott Rasmussen.
The Department of Homeland Security responded to a wave of criticism with a statement to media on Sunday reinforcing its commitment to carrying out all executive orders from the White House.
“The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of the president’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. The president’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 president’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 the president’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.”
Hana Levi Julian
About the Author: Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism.

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.
at

US Embassy: Israeli Passport Holders Born in Arab Nations OK to Enter

Home » News & Views » Global »

US Embassy: Israeli Passport Holders Born in Arab Nations OK to Enter

The clarification issued by the US Embassy in Tel Aviv says Israeli passport holders born in Arab nations but without Arab passports are A-OK.
JFK International Airport 
JFK International Airport
Photo Credit: Doug Letterman / Wikimedia

“If you have a currently valid U.S. visa in your Israeli passport and were born in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen, and do not have a valid passport from one of these countries, your visa was not cancelled and remains valid,” according to a statement issued Tuesday by the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv.
The clarification was published in order to reassure some 145,000 Israelis who were born in Arab nations – some of who were concerned they might not be able to visit their families in the United States due to the temporary ban implemented by the American government last week.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order launching a 90-day suspension on visas and refugees from the seven aforementioned Muslim-majority nations, as a means of “extreme vetting” – until the country can come up with a better way to screen for terror risks. Refugees from Syria face a 120-day wait.
There has been a global and local response of mass hysteria in response to the restriction, which is the first to be enacted in about half a century.
Hana Levi Julian
About the Author: Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism.

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.
at

Trump travel ban: 3 biblical priorities


Trump travel ban: 3 biblical priorities

Last night, President Trump removed his acting attorney general after she refused to defend his executive order restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority nations. Sally Q. Yates was deputy attorney general under President Obama and was serving until the Senate confirms Trump’s nominee for the post, Sen. Jeff Sessions.
This is just the latest news in the ongoing controversy over the travel ban. Immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia are directly affected by the president’s decision.
The administration notes that these nations were listed on the Obama-era Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. President Trump blames the airport chaos that followed his executive order on computer outages at Delta Air Lines and political protests. Henoted in a tweet that only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. An additional 173 were denied entry on flights to the US from the seven countries listed in the order.
Arguments in favor of the ban:
•    A four-month restriction on travel from these countries is needed to keep Americans safe.
•    The chaos that resulted was a temporary consequence of preventing terrorists from traveling into the US.
•    If advance warning or a grace period had been announced, terrorists could have traveled before the ban took effect.
•    The order is not against Muslims in general—it does not affect more than forty other Muslim-majority countries.
Democratic leader Chuck Schumer saw the controversy very differently, calling the executive order “mean-spirited and un-American.” The New York Times called the ban “illegal.” Critics note that none of the 9/11 terrorists came from the seven banned countries. Protesters in many other countries are registering their opposition as well.
My purpose this morning is not to argue for one side or the other. Rather, it is to think biblically with you about three issues central to the debate.
One: Scripture encourages security.
The Bible consistently teaches the priority of self-defense (Luke 11:21; Exodus 22:2;Proverbs 25:26; Nehemiah 4:17–18; Psalm 82:4). We are told to respect landmarks (Proverbs 22:28; 23:10). Moses noted that when God “divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the people” (Deuteronomy 32:8). The Promised Land’s borders are clearly delineated in Scripture (Ezekiel 47:13–23; Numbers 34:1–15).
Two: Our government is responsible for our safety.
Paul called the governing authority “the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). Our oath of office requires our president to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution and those who live under it. While we can debate the degree to which the travel ban enhances or endangers our security, we must recognize the post-9/11 reality that meeting the needs of foreign travelers can come at the expense of American citizens. For this reason, by a ratio of 48 percent to 42 percent, American voters support suspending immigration from “terror prone” regions.
Three: Compassion expresses the heart of God.
Scripture consistently calls us to care for immigrants and foreigners (Exodus 22:21;Leviticus 19:33–34; Deuteronomy 10:18–19; Ezekiel 47:21–23; Zechariah 7:10; Malachi 3:5; Hebrews 13:2). Many professionals, children, and refugees are affected by the ban. Jesus stands in solidarity with those who are persecuted (Acts 9:4–5) and considers our service to those in need as service to our Lord (Matthew 25:31–40).
Balancing borders, safety, and compassion is, of course, the challenge of our day. However we view this divisive issue, the most practical way we can respond is to pray for our leaders and those affected by this controversy and to find ways to serve the 40.7 million immigrants and others in need where we live.
Can we truly say we love our Father if we don’t protect and serve his children?
Can we truly say we love our Father if we don’t protect and serve his children?
NOTE: For an unusual way to view the challenges of our time, please see my latest website article, Albert Einstein and the hand of God. Also, I encourage you as the Lenten season approaches to consider encountering God through one of my devotionals. You can order my latest book and download previous versions here.
ALSO: I invite you to join the Dallas Baptist University Institute for Global Engagement and the Denison Forum on Truth and Culture for the Leadership Lecture Series featuring Matthew Dowd. Mr. Dowd is a political analyst for ABC News. He will reflect on the 2016 presidential election as well as the current state of American politics. I will then lead a time of discussion with him.
We will meet on Monday, February 6, at 7 PM in Pilgrim Chapel on the DBU campus. Tickets are $5.00 per person. For more information or to register for this event, please visit www.dbu.edu/ige.
at

Why the Supreme Court fight is sure to go nuclear

Why the Supreme Court fight is sure to go nuclear

January 29, 2017 | 7:08pm | Updated
President Trump is scheduled to announce his nominee for the vacant US Supreme Court seat this week. There should be no illusions about the confirmation battle that will follow.
No matter what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says about revenge not being a motive for Democrats or how fair they plan to be, there’s only one way the Republicans will be able to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
ADVERTISING
It’s nuclear or nothing.
The so-called nuclear option would happen if Republicans fully quash the filibuster, a process Democrats began eroding in 2013 when they nuked the filibuster for most judicial and executive-branch nominees.
The Democrats had the majority then, and heedless of the possibility that the tables might soon be turned, former leader Harry Reid decided to short-circuit the ability of the minority to frustrate the will of President Obama by forcing Democrats to get 60 votes on nominees.
The Democrats used the shift to pack the lower courts with Obama nominees. But, as Schumer now admits ruefully, that gives Republicans an edge now that they control Congress and the White House. It means that no matter how much Democrats rail against Trump’s cabinet choices, every single one of them is likely to be confirmed.
However, Reid left one exception when he altered the rules: the Supreme Court. So while Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell might abhor trashing tradition, he might have no choice but to use his power to end the filibuster altogether.
Unless he can persuade eight Democrats to back Trump’s SCOTUS nominee while keeping all 52 Republicans in line, McConnell will have to go nuclear.
McConnell’s decision to not even consider Obama’s choice of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia after the justice’s death last February was a high-stakes gamble that paid off.
It’s true that there was no precedent for asking a Senate controlled by the opposition to alter the court’s 5-4 split by replacing a conservative with a liberal (even the New York Times noted Garland was to the left of two of the current liberals on the court) in an election year. But once it fell to Trump to fill the seat, Democrats were going to go all-out to prevent him from preserving a conservative majority on the court for the foreseeable future.
But this is about more than revenge. The left’s horror over Trump had made an already highly partisan environment on Capitol Hill even more toxic. With their base not even waiting for Trump to do anything before taking to the streets, Democrats will dig in against the GOP on even the most trivial of matters. When it comes to the future of American law and polarizing issues like abortion, they are certain to fight to the last ditch.
Given the large number of red-state Democrats up for re-election in 2018, there is a chance McConnell will be able to split the opposition and win without a rules change. But that possibility is limited by the certainty that some defecting Democrats would then face primary challenges from the increasingly belligerent Bernie Sanders wing of the party that seeks to recreate the same dynamic on the left that the Tea Party had on the GOP.
Schumer is likely to have the votes to filibuster any Trump SCOTUS nominee no matter how qualified or mainstream his or her views might be. That leaves McConnell with only a nuclear strike on the last vestige of the filibuster as his only path to a court confirmation.
The filibuster was probably finished no matter which side won in November. It’s arguable that the Republicans would have used it to stop any Hillary Clinton court nomination had Trump lost. Given the stakes involved in replacing Scalia and the disappearance of any neutral ground left between the two parties, for either side to meekly allow their opponents to shift the court without a battle to the death has become unimaginable.
The end of the requirement for a filibuster-beating supermajority is the only way the court is ever going to get back to nine.
FILED UNDER  ,   ,   ,  
at

Senate Dems thinking about backing off filibuster of Trump’s Supreme Court pick — here’s why

Senate Dems thinking about backing off filibuster of Trump’s Supreme Court pick — here’s why

Tré Goins-Phillips 
Senate Dems thinking about backing off filibuster of Trump’s Supreme Court pick — here’s why
Getty Images
Democrats are apparently now getting cold feet over their vow to filibuster President Donald Trump’s soon-to-be-announced Supreme Court pick.
The president said Monday that he would formally announce Tuesday night his nominee to fill the open high court seat once held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Afterward, Senate Democrats announced that they would filibuster any nominee who is not Merrick Garland, former President Barack Obama’s choice to fill the opening.
Sen. Jeff Merkely (D-Ore.) told reporters Monday: “This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat. We will use every lever in our power to stop this.”
But it appears Democrats might now be changing their minds on the matter.
According to CNN, Democrats discussed during a private retreat in West Virginia last week that it might not be wise to use their political capital to block the nominee for Scalia’s seat. Instead, the lawmakers considered that it might be better to save their fight to fill a progressive justice’s seat, like that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83, or Stephen Breyer, 78.
It is worth noting, too, that Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote in the Supreme Court, is 80.
The reason for the Democrats’ walk back is based on their fear that Republicans might do away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. If the GOP eliminates the rule, it gives Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) the so-called “nuclear option,” which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes — rather than 60 — to sidestep the filibuster.
In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked the “nuclear option,” lowering the vote threshold to eliminate the threat of filibusters for executive branch appointees and all other judicial nominations except the Supreme Court.
Without the filibuster, Democratic lawmakers could lose leverage in the next Supreme Court battle if Trump were to fill a seat vacated by a liberal justice.
That doesn’t mean, however, that the left has forgotten or forgiven the Republicans’ obstruction of Garland.
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons (Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN he is still angry about the Republican majority’s refusal to hold confirmation hearings or a vote on Obama’s nominee for more than a year.
“But I’m not going to do to President Trump’s nominee what the Republicans in the Senate did to President Obama’s,” Coons said. “I will push for a hearing, and I will push for a vote.”
Some Democrats, however, believe they could block Trump’s Supreme Court nominee for up to a year in retaliation over the Republicans’ decision to do the same with Garland.
McConnell, for his part, has consistently been wary of nuking the filibuster, telling Politico last week of a potential Senate rule change, “That’s not a presidential decision. That’s a Senate decision.”
“What I’ve said to him, and I’ve stated publicly and I’ll say today: We’re going to get this nominee confirmed,” he added.
Rate this story
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *