Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Trump White House clashes with resistant civil servants

Trump White House clashes with resistant civil servants

   
Autoplay: On | Off
Tensions between President Trump and the civil service have spilled out into the open as the bureaucracy’s career employees publicly clash with their chief executive.
Civil servants were always bound to be at odds with the president, who promised to drain the government “swamp.” But now a string of spats with the bureaucracy, culminating Friday with the president’s controversial immigration executive order, has forced that bad blood to become public. After the acting attorney general refused to defend Trump’s order on Monday night, he fired her. Meanwhile, hundreds of State Department diplomats are reportedly signing on to a dissent memo criticizing the policy.
The moves are the latest signals of unease from a civil service facing a 180-degree shift from the previous administration and a new president who repeatedly lambasted the bureaucracy while on the campaign stump. 
“I don’t recall any kind of dissent like this happening either in a Democratic or Republican administration — this is clearly unusual,” said Chris Lu, the former deputy secretary of Labor in the Obama administration.
“There is a very powerful dissent that is now coming to the forefront among career employees. It’s unusual in my experience to have this, but we are dealing with an unusual president.”
Anita McBride, a veteran of the three previous Republican administrations, agreed that the open clashes between the administration and its civil service are more apparent than ever. But she added that more covert disagreements aren’t unique to this White House.
“These may be overt protests, but in bureaucracies, there are a lot of behind-the-scenes and under-the-radar usurping of presidential power,” she said.
“I think it’s more open because I think they see that the president is more open.”
Trump’s Monday-evening dismissal of acting Attorney General Sally Yates provided the starkest example of discord between the civil service and the president.
As criticism continued to mount over Trump’s order to temporarily ban citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. and to halt all refugee resettlements for four months, Yates told her employees that the Department of Justice wouldn’t defend the order in court.
Hours later, the White House fired Yates, an Obama-administration holdover, and announced the change with an unusually harsh statement. Trump then appointed a replacement who agreed to enforce the order.
“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” the White House statement read.
“Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.”
The administration took a similarly aggressive stance toward the revelations that hundreds of diplomats are reportedly signing on to a dissent memo, a State Department tradition dating back to the Vietnam War that allows lower-ranking officials to elevate concerns about the agency’s policies.
“A policy which closes our doors to over 200 million legitimate travelers in the hopes of preventing a small number of travelers who intend to harm America … will not achieve its aim of making our country safer,” the draft reads, according to a copy obtained by the Brookings Institution.
“Such a policy runs counter to core American values of nondiscrimination, fair play, and extending a warm welcome to foreign visitors and immigrants.”
That letter comes days after a handful of high-ranking career diplomats stepped down amid reports that most were asked to leave by the incoming administration.
News of the memo prompted a stern rebuke from White House press secretary Sean Spicer during his Monday briefing.
“We’re talking about 109 people from seven countries the Obama administration identified, and these career bureaucrats have a problem with it?” Spicer asked. 
“They should either get with the program or they can go. This is about the safety of America.”
McBride said that those comments aren’t unusual in the White House, telling The Hill a story about a meeting she ran during an ambassador orientation during President George W. Bush’s term. One career foreign service ambassador stood up and asked what they should do if they disagreed with the president.
McBride told the ambassador that civil servants with disagreements could always leave — although the official ended up staying. 
There have been further signs of tension and pushback in the civil service. A clampdown on the Environmental Protection Agency’s dealings with the press prompted concerns, and short-lived freezes on contracts and grants shook up some public employees and their allies.
The National Park Service’s Twitter needled Trump over his claims about the attendance at his inauguration by retweeting a side-by-side picture showing the larger crowd at former President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration.
The executive branch antagonism has reportedly inspired suspicion among Trump loyalists. On Monday, Foreign Policy reported that Trump’s National Security Council is producing fewer documents than its counterparts in previous administrations, an apparent attempt to curtail leaks.
And it’s turned the civil service into the last line of defense for liberals facing a Republican Congress and White House. Yates’s refusal to defend the travel ban turned her into an overnight hero on the left, while various Twitter accounts purporting to be run by rogue agency staffers remain popular, despite the lack of proof that they’re actually run by dissident staffers.
Stephen Hess, a veteran of the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations, told The Hill that the animosity between the two camps is “absolutely” more heated than at the start of previous administrations.
To Hess, that’s not a big surprise. Trump campaigned by blasting the bureaucracy and kicked off his administration with a federal hiring freeze. And it can’t be discounted that many civil servants likely didn’t vote for him.
“By and large, civil servants probably were not big among Trump’s voters,” he said.
“It’s not just that you are starting with a group that are irritated by one new memo or action, it’s a group where the majority did not favor Trump in the first place. That adds fuel to this.”
Trump lost the bureaucratic strongholds of Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia to Hillary Clinton, with Clinton beating Trump in D.C. in the presidential race by a margin of 87 percentage points.
The running battle with the bureaucracy is likely “startling” to Trump, Hess added, since the businessman is used to the full control he had over his company. But the government is designed to move slowly and doesn’t often afford Trump the same immediate results that he could get by replacing Yates.
“He could do whatever he wanted — ‘you’re hired, you’re fired,’ ” Hess said.
“He’s going to find with the civil service, as opposed to the political appointees, you can’t say ‘you’re fired.’ If you say ‘you are fired,’ boy, you start a process that could go on legally for years.”
McBride believes that the overt protests will settle down once Trump’s full Cabinet is confirmed, giving time for the leadership to fill out their top staff and for dissenters to step down.
But Lu, the former Obama administration official, is less sure the tensions will ease, particularly if Trump keeps up his tough responses.
“It's not helpful for the president or his spokespeople to be attacking them,” he said.
“I don’t think this will chill them,” Lu said. “I think this is going to embolden career civil servants.”

Trump's Directive: Biblical, Constitutional, and Legal


Trump's Directive: Biblical, Constitutional, and Legal

By: Bryan Fischer
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 11:02 AM
Bryan FischerHost of "Focal Point"ConnectFollowMore Articles
 There is nothing here for American citizens and patriots to dislike and everything to approve.
- Bryan Fischer
The cacophony from the political and religious left over Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban has been not only clanging but irrational and unhinged. Most of them seem on the verge of some kind of mental or emotional breakdown. 
Trump’s travel restrictions halt the refugee program for a time until better vetting procedures can be implemented and halt immigration for a time from countries which are noted hotbeds of Islamic unrest. 
To the degree that there is anything rational about the frenzied opposition to Trump’s directive, it is the accusation that it is un-Christian, unconstitutional, and illegal. Such opposition is wrong on all three counts. 
First, the charge that an immigration ban is unbiblical. Because of the immediate and implacable hostility of the people of Ammon and Moab when Israel came out of Egypt, God himself forbade the nation of Israel to accept any immigrants from either of these people groups to “the tenth generation” (Deuteronomy 23:3). Since a biblical generation is 40 years, this was in essence a permanent ban. 
So the benchmark established by God is this: if a people group manifests an unremitting hostility to another nation, that nation has the moral right to forbid entrance to immigrants from that people group in the interests of its own security and peace. Was God saying that every Ammonite and Moabite was evil beyond redemption? No, but since it was virtually impossible to tell which Ammonites or Moabites Israel needed to worry about and which ones they didn’t, God’s directive was to be careful with them all. 
Immigration exceptions were made for those who were properly and satisfactorily vetted. Ruth, for instance, was a Moabite but was not only allowed to enter Israel but to become a part of the line that led to the Savior of the world. 
It should be noted that Ruth was embraced as an immigrant because of her willingness to reject the religious practices of her native land and completely assimilate to her newly adopted homeland. “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:17). 
Second, to the charge that Trump’s directive is unconstitutional. This assertion is categorically and resoundingly false. The Constitution grants to Congress unilateral and unquestioned authority to set whatever immigration restrictions it wishes, according to Article I, Section 9. According to that section of the Constitution, Congress is free to limit “migration” to persons that “it shall think proper to admit.” 
There is, you will note, not even a prohibition against the use of a “religious” test, which is nothing more than an ideological test. First Amendment guarantees apply only to legal American residents, not to people who have never set foot in the United States. 
If Congress thinks it is not “proper to admit” individuals whose religion orders them to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (Surah 9:5), it is perfectly free to do so. We have denied immigration to Communists since 1952 on the grounds that communist ideology is incompatible with American values. So is the ideology of Islam. 
There is absolutely no constitutional right whatsoever to immigrate to the United States. The U.S., like every other sovereign nation in the world, has the moral right to reserve immigration to those who will be an asset and refuse it to those who won’t. 
Congress restricted immigration to the Chinese for 10 years in the late 19th century in order to preserve demographic balance. In the 1920s, Congress established quotas based on national origin to preserve the diverse but harmonious unity we enjoyed. 
Third, as to the charge that Trump’s directive is illegal. As Andy McCarthy reminds us, 
Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f) which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may 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, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” (emphasis added). 
This is the very section of the law that Trump cited in his directive. He applied it specifically to seven countries of particular jihadi unrest and danger: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen. These are countries which have already been designated by the Obama administration as “countries of concern.” 
It’s worthy of note that this is NOT exactly a “Muslim ban,” since the directive does not apply to 87% of the Muslim world. Even some countries which ought to be on the list (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) aren’t. 
It should not be forgotten for a moment that President Obama himself banned immigration from Iraq for six months in 2011 for national security reasons. Where were the howls of outrage about religious liberty and Islamophobia back then? And let’s remember that Democrat president Jimmy Carter completely banned immigration from Iran in 1980 during the hostage crisis. Where was the screeching then about the Constitution? The silence of the left was deafening on both occasions. 
McCarthy sums it up this way: “[T]here is no doubt that the executive order temporarily banning entry from specified Muslim-majority countries is both well within President Trump’s constitutional authority and consistent with statutory law.” 
So Trump’s directive is biblical, constitutional, legal, and designed to protect America’s security. There is nothing here for American citizens and patriots to dislike and everything to approve.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio. Likewise no comments directed at the moderator(s) will be approved.)

Kid's call to murder: "Slaughter" the Israelis "Their leader will be carried in a coffin"


http://s.rs6.net/t?e=ECA8UW9UPZc&c=1&r=1 http://s.rs6.net/t?e=ECA8UW9UPZc&c=3&r=1 http://s.rs6.net/t?e=ECA8UW9UPZc&c=4&r=1 http://s.rs6.net/t?e=ECA8UW9UPZc&c=5&r=1
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001uIRUeBDn-tZ6pw0tQ-dvWXV9qbOYzZC4zeunKHe2k8D9KT205LXEx3kyrhzMswYGIk4rGnXRpV_wfZNoOcxj4HAoVAZwL7bqesFOeDwdZn28zTIebrkgpve-bJZDO-kAstKje_OkrTc8_u2ldlGruAyZgbrx-kZdcqzqdK1Wz78=&c=XSw__NPAYrgmmvLfrn8jBdNGk0yyi5zCKPNb1yqHiz9LC77nxkc8jg==&ch=HU4SfQerDlP8N5GoyU2QCxd4PFnP8UdxS5UXsdZoG7YkL3JULVE2WQ==           
Bulletin
Feb. 1, 2017
Terror poems for kids on PA TV
 
Kid's call to murder:
"Slaughter" the Israelis
"Their leader will be carried in a coffin"
 
"My rock has turned into an AK-47"
 
Kid's call to be killed:
 "Our blood is food for the revolution"
"Yasser Arafat, for you we shall die"
 
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001uIRUeBDn-tZ6pw0tQ-dvWXV9qbOYzZC4zeunKHe2k8D9KT205LXEx3HRWf9_i1e5ZBELyMrTrPtFVOOL4ne0r85b-Wt1aIax9b-vpKnVt14zEWrLNOvo7uRPOCdyb9cbODigZMkfgAGO_TnkVsTiBs1gtlQX6aHSPDh1XD7cAMKY0R47xGo1rMo_aUg_XR9DAQexx9bTxeX52MCHobxl8U4IWxSyTL2nmS8_9IvRY6M=&c=XSw__NPAYrgmmvLfrn8jBdNGk0yyi5zCKPNb1yqHiz9LC77nxkc8jg==&ch=HU4SfQerDlP8N5GoyU2QCxd4PFnP8UdxS5UXsdZoG7YkL3JULVE2WQ==
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

 
Twice this month Palestinian Authority TV's children's program The Best Home had young children recite poems encouraging violence. One poem called for murder of Israelis "as we slaughtered them in your streets, Beirut." The poem also urged Palestinians to seek death, emphasizing that if you are a member of Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas' party, your "blood is food for the revolution":


Boy: "Today, O our West Bank, our Gaza, raise your voice
O our land, the time has still not passed
As we expelled them from Gaza and Sderot
As we slaughtered them in your streets, Beirut
For you, Yasser Arafat, for you we shall die
After the night comes the light of day, and the fig leave will be removed...
Tomorrow we will take our vengeance, and their leader will be carried in a coffin
We, Fatah, are a storm, and our blood is food for the revolution..."
PA TV host: "Bravo, Muhammad, thank you, thank you, thank you!"
[Official PA TV, The Best Home, Jan. 6, 2017]
 
 
A girl and a boy recited another poem on the same children's program, celebrating the escalation from violence of "rocks" to violence of automatic rifles:
 
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=472&fld_id=473&doc_id=20172
 
"We want to speak openly, with no hesitation and with no fear
World, hear and see, my rock has turned into an AK-47 [assault rifle],
Your words are true, Yasser Arafat
O mountain, the wind will not move you."
[Official PA TV, The Best Home, Jan. 20, 2017]
 
These recitals by children on official PA TV of poems that advocate murder and Martyrdom add to the efforts of PA and Fatah leaders to heat up the atmosphere in the Palestinian street. Palestinian Media Watch has documented their many statements promising "religious war" and violence should US President Trump move the US embassy to Jerusalem. A Fatah official even explained that Fatah is holding meetings with "all of the field leaders... in preparation for a fierce popular intifada."
 
The poem declaring that "my rock has turned into an AK-47" echoes a music video which PA TV broadcast numerous times from 2000-2003 during the PA's terror campaign (the second Intifada, 2000-2005). It featured a boy singing "Don't be afraid. Allah is with them... The stone in their hand has turned into an AK-47."

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=475&fld_id=475&doc_id=1185

From 2000-2005, the PA leadership used its TV station to broadcast numerous inciting videos encouraging Palestinians to attack Israelis and seek Martyrdom in confrontations. 
 
This week, PMW reported on a music video broadcast on Fatah-run Awdah TV, which also featured content reminiscent of Intifada broadcasts.
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001uIRUeBDn-tZ6pw0tQ-dvWXV9qbOYzZC4zeunKHe2k8D9KT205LXEx1zMds0o1fr2a88r16L7DUdct6nIqhKH0606MD8pB55i7sDAZIct-CI96f2hLnc7_XG6NvbpjUgNVnJY5BywlHNR3cgPpfxmhESHSw7wxZ-yCx1257w-ToaMYAYmctDk72SD82aVeJ64&c=XSw__NPAYrgmmvLfrn8jBdNGk0yyi5zCKPNb1yqHiz9LC77nxkc8jg==&ch=HU4SfQerDlP8N5GoyU2QCxd4PFnP8UdxS5UXsdZoG7YkL3JULVE2WQ==
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101929139886
PMW, Palestinian Media Watch, Jerusalem, Israel

Sent by pmw@palwatch.org in collaboration with
http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=press01

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *