Thursday, February 2, 2017

Poll: 49 percent support Trump's immigration ban, 41 percent oppose

Poll: 49 percent support Trump's immigration ban, 41 percent oppose

Poll Shows Voters Support Trump's Immigration Actions
Washington Examiner
Autoplay: On | Off
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday afternoon found nearly half of U.S. adults support President Trump's executive order to temporarily suspend immigration from seven countries with ties to terrorism, and halt all refugee programs for 120 days.
The Jan. 30-31 poll concluded that 49 percent of adults "strongly" or "somewhat" agree with the Trump administration's action. A total 41 percent "strongly" or "somewhat" disagreed with the White House's move. Ten percent said they are undecided on the Jan. 27 announcement.
The majority of Democrats, 53 percent, said they "strongly disagree" with Trump, while 51 percent of Republicans said they "strongly agree" with the policy to block people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Thirty-one percent of all respondents said they feel "more safe" with the ban in effect, but 26 percent feel "less safe" as a result of the executive order.

Homeland Security's Kelly Defends Trump Travel Ban

Homeland Security's Kelly Defends Trump Travel Ban

Retired Marine Gen. John F. Kelly testifies during the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on his confirmation to be Secretary of Homeland Security on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2017. (AP Photo/Cliff
Retired Marine Gen. John F. Kelly testifies during the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on his confirmation to be Secretary of Homeland Security on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2017. (AP Photo/Cliff
New Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired Marine general, defended President Donald Trump's travel ban on seven majority-Muslim countries and said Tuesday that confusion at airports was caused mainly by protesters.
At a news conference with top aides, Kelly pushed back against charges that Homeland and other government agencies were blindsided by Trump's executive order last Friday imposing a 90-day ban on travelers to the U.S. from Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
The order also put a 120-day ban on admitting refugees from across the globe and placed an indefinite halt on Syrian refugees coming to the United States.
"We did know the [Executive Order] was coming," said Kelly, an Iraq veteranwhose last post was as head of U.S. Southern Command.
"We had people involved in the general drafting of it. We knew all that was coming," he said, and "it wasn't a surprise it was coming."
Kelly also argued against calling Trump's action a "travel ban."
"This is not a travel ban; this is a temporary pause," he said, and "This is not, I repeat, not a ban on Muslims."
Kelly said the confusion and delays at airports across the country Friday night were mainly the result of protests at immigration checkpoints. "Our officers -- who are at the counter, so to speak -- the only chaos they saw was what was taking place in other parts of the airport."
He was joined at the news conference by Kevin McAleenan, the acting head of Customs and Border Protection at Homeland.
McAleenan said that more than one million travelers came to the U.S. by air in the first 72 hours of the order being in place. Of that number, about 500,000 were foreign nationals. He said 721 of the 500,000 foreign nationals were not allowed to board flights because of the order, and 1,060 lawful permanent residents and 75 visa holders who did arrive were granted waivers. He also said 872 refugees will be arriving this week after waivers are processed for them.
However, in contrast to Kelly, McAleenan said it is "fair to acknowledge" that communications about the executive order "haven't been the best in the initial rollout of this process."
Implementation of the order became more complicated as several federal judges issued stays on its execution and acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday night announced that, in her opinion, the executive order was unlawful. Yates said she would not order U.S. Attorneys to defend it in court.
Trump immediately fired Yates and replaced her with Dana J. Boente, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who pledged to defend the executive order.

Questions about Terror Threat

The controversial travel ban on people from the seven majority-Muslim countries has raised questions about the magnitude of the terror threat they pose to the U.S. and prompted the Defense Department to seek exemptionsfor those who helped the U.S. military in Iraq. Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Monday that the DoD had yet to begin submitting requests for exemptions.
The executive order signed by Trump at the Pentagon last Friday with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis at his side was titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States."
The first sentence of the order said it was intended "to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States."
Without citing a figure, the order went on to say, "Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program."
In remarks after the signing, Trump said the order was designed to "keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America. We don't want them here."
However, two recent think tank reports have concluded that the terror risk posed by travelers from the seven countries, and from Muslim-Americans in general, has been exaggerated.
A report last week by the Cato Institute said, "The countries that Trump chose to temporarily ban are not serious terrorism risks."
The author of the report, Alex Nowrasteh, said he had compiled a list of foreign-born people who committed or were convicted of attempting to commit a terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015.
He said that, during the time period he analyzed, a total of 17 people from the countries singled out by Trump "were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and they killed zero people."
In another report for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, sociologist Charles Kurzman, a professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said that 46 Muslim-Americans were associated with violent extremism in 2016, a 40 percent drop from 2015.
"Few of these individuals (9 of 46, or 20 percent) had family backgrounds from the seven countries reportedly designated by the Trump administration for temporary immigration bans," the report said.
In a statement accompanying the report, David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center, said, "The data in this report contradicts two common narratives in our polarized discourse about terrorism. First, it is flatly untrue that America is deeply threatened by violent extremism by Muslim-Americans; attacks by Muslims accounted for only one-third of one percent of all murders in America last year."
"Second, it is also untrue that violent extremism can be ignored as a problem within the Muslim-American community. Collaborative efforts between government agencies and Muslim-Americans to address this problem are justified and needed," Schanzer said.
-- Richard Sisk can be reached at Richard.Sisk@Military.com.

Related Topics

Headlines Homeland Security Donald Trump TerrorismRichard Sisk

MILITARY NEWS APP BY MILITARY.COM

Download the new Military.com News App for Android on Google Playor for Apple devices on iTunes!

Where's the Outcry Against Obama's Deportation Order?

Where's the Outcry Against Obama's Deportation Order?

Political Editors · Jan. 31, 2017
Print Email Bigger Smaller
While leftists struggle to come to terms with President Donald Trump’s temporary moratorium on refugees and decry his coming crackdown on illegal immigrants, you won’t hear a peep from those same people regarding Barack Obama’s little-discussed deportation order that he enacted on his way out the door.
Thousands of oppressed Cubans continue to seek refuge elsewhere to escape the Castro regime’s iron fist. Nevertheless, Obama, who extended unbefitting olive branches to the Cuban government, broke longstanding protocol by making a sly, last-minute decision to ban and ultimately deport defectors who land on American soil. Those who were hoping to be protected under the U.S. “wet foot-dry foot” policy suddenly aren’t.
As Obama explained it, “Effective immediately, Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal. By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries.” Chances are, most leftists who see that quote without any attribution could mistake it for a Trump directive. The Left has a serious problem with selective outcry, which depends entirely on who is in office and the political circumstances.
Tags: 


Which Is the Party of Obstructionists?


RIGHT HOOKS

Which Is the Party of Obstructionists?

Jordan Candler · Jan. 31, 2017
Print Email Bigger Smaller
Democrat obstructionists are exploiting a rarely used strategy to delay as long as possible some of President Donald Trump’s nominees. According to The Hill, “Senate Democrats on Tuesday refused to attend a committee vote on two of President Trump’s more controversial nominees, effectively delaying their consideration. Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee boycotted votes to advance Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trump’s pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and Steven Mnuchin, his selection to head the Treasury Department.”
They amusingly insist the boycott revolves around ethics. We’re (ahem) enlightened that the righteous Left is suddenly worried about principles, but Hatch, for his part, rebutted, “I can’t understand why senators who know we’re going to have these two people go through can’t support the committee.” We can. Both nominees are despised by Democrats. And as far as Price is concerned, the Left may be trying to change ObamaCare’s fate. As The Wall Street Journalnotes, “In addition to slowing action on key Trump administration jobs, the move also throws a wrench — at least temporarily — into Republican efforts to speed up repeal of the Affordable Care Act.” Who’s playing politics with Americans' health again?
For the record, boycotting a nominee isn’t unheard of, though not necessarily to this degree. It happened in 2003 and again in 2013, both involving EPA nominees (Mike Leavitt and Gina McCarthy, respectively). This time, however, Democrats are boycotting two nominees simultaneously. It has less to do with genuine concern about their policy ideas and ethics than it does ultimately derailing the GOP’s momentum.
In a Feb. 2016 op-ed for The Washington Post, now-retired Sen. Harry Reid warned that the GOP risked being “remembered as the most nakedly partisan, obstructionist and irresponsible majority in history.” Fast forward to today, and the Senate hasn’t even gotten to Trump’s Supreme Court and EPA picks. By the time all is said and done, Reid’s words will most accurately reflect his own party. Fortunately, the only difference is that, thanks to Reid’s failed leadership, the Democrat Party is an irresponsible minority.


The Left’s New Hero

explore ▼ media ▼ store   Skip to content Pete Marovich/Getty Images Sally Yates:    

The Left’s New Hero glenn recommends If Democrats Voted for Gorsuch in 2006, Why Wouldn’t They Now? Why Glenn Will Be the Happiest Man in the World if He Has to Apologize Every Day The Gorsuch Pick: We’re Thrilled to be Wrong Author The Glenn Beck Program Posted on Tuesday, Jan 31, 2017 Going out in a blaze of partisan politics, acting Attorney General Sally Yates — whose departure was imminent upon President Trump’s AG nominee being confirmed — chose her personal morality over the law, refusing to uphold the president’s order temporarily banning individuals from certain countries entering the US. The move resulted in her being fired within hours. “A lot of people like to make a name for themselves when they have the opportunity at the very end of an administration, to go out in flames, to go out as the hero. And I think that’s what she did. She saw an opportunity, and I guarantee you, she is going to be a hero of the left,” Glenn said Tuesday on radio. Sally Yates’ job was to enforce the law. President Trump’s executive order was legal. She made a purely political and calculated career move that had nothing to do with upholding the law. Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program: VIEW TRANSCRIPTVIEW COMMENTS GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to the program. Glad you’re here. Last night I turn on the TV. I’m in Los Angeles. And thank you so much for listening today. But I got in last night, I don’t even know what time it is. And turn on the television, and Donald Trump had just fired the interim attorney general. And they were calling it the Monday Night Massacre. Now, in case you don’t know what the Monday Night Massacre is referring to — which, by the way, is crazy, crazy to compare it to the Saturday Night Massacre. This comes from the Nixon administration. It is absolutely amazing to me how the press is so out of control. They are hurting themselves even more. To refer to what happened last night as the Monday Night Massacre, to immediately — within minutes, within minutes, compare it to what Richard Nixon did is obscene. What happened on the Saturday Night Massacre is Richard Nixon was being investigated for Watergate. His appointees would not fire the special investigator. They had a special investigator to look in to see if Nixon was indeed a crook. And he said to his Justice Department, “You have to fire the independent investigator.” And they said, “No.” And he said, “I’m telling you, I’m the president of the United States. You’ll fire them.” And they said, “Mr. President, it is independent. We will not fire them.” Now, what’s the difference? Here’s what happened last night: The Muslim ban goes into effect, and the Justice Department is the one that has to police the ban. Are you doing it? Are you doing the right thing? Are you following the law? Which, by the way, the problem is, the law is an executive order. Are you following the law? The interim attorney general says no. Now, not on legal reasons. The Saturday Night Massacre, it was on legal reasons. This wasn’t a legal reason. She said her morals told her she couldn’t do that, not the law. Her morals. What else is the difference? The difference between the Saturday Night Massacre and the Monday Night Massacre was that she wasn’t appointed by the president. Here’s a woman who was appointed by Barack Obama. Here’s the temptation: A lot of people — a lot of people like to make a name for themselves when they are — when they have the opportunity at the very end of an administration, to go out in flames, to go out as the hero. And I think that’s what she did. She saw an opportunity — and I guarantee you, she is going to be a hero of the left. This was a purely political and career move. That’s all this was. There was nothing legal about it. Her job is to enforce the law. Now, if she wants to have some sort of moral reason to do that, she can do that. But don’t confuse that with something that happened in the 1970s that was about deep corruption and legal reasons. So last night, I tweeted something — I don’t even remember. Stu, maybe you can look up my tweet. Because I was talking to Stu this morning, and we haven’t even had a chance to talk about this yet. He said, “I gather you’re against him firing the attorney general last night?” And I said, “No.” And he said, “Oh, I read your tweet.” STU: Yeah, it was the one about you talked about them being betrayed. GLENN: Read the tweet. STU: You were betrayed? This PR is unlike anything I’ve ever seen from the White House before. Principles over parties. Return to the balance of constitutional powers. GLENN: Yes. Okay. This is the problem with the 144 characters. STU: Yeah, yeah. GLENN: The problem I had was — read this PR — this press release. Read it from start to finish. The entire government is now starting to speak and reflect the actual language of Donald Trump. Either that, or he’s writing the press releases, which I hope to God he has other things to do. But listen to the language of this. Do you have it, Stu? STU: I can get it. GLENN: I’m sorry. I thought it was connected to the tweet. STU: Yeah. Hold on one second. Yeah, White House statement here. It’s loading. There we go. All right. White House statement: The acting Attorney General Sally Yates betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form legality by the Department of Justice office and legal counsel. Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who was weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. It’s time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for — it does sound like Trump. JEFFY: It sure does. GLENN: It does. STU: Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country. GLENN: Okay. Stop. So I agree with him. This is reasonable. This is not a ban. However, the problem is, he wants both sides. When he signed it, he said it was a ban. As he was signing it, he said, “I’m doing the Muslim ban.” He used the word “ban.” So why? Why would you do that? Because everyone is playing populist politics. Why did she refuse to move and put herself in a position where she knew she had to be fired? Because she knew she would be popular with her side. Why did he use the word “ban” when it is a pause? If you don’t want to enflame things, what you do, as you’re signing this, you say, “Look, this is — I want to make it clear, this is not a ban, this is a pause. All I’m doing is pausing so we can look into how we’re vetting people and make sure we’re safe.” That’s what you do. But everyone is playing into populism. And so he immediately said, “It’s a ban.” But then he later said, “It’s not a ban.” Well, which one is it? And he knows which one it is: It’s not a ban. But he wants to play into his crew that wants the ban, that want that tough stand. He’s no longer playing — or he hasn’t ever — but the president is no longer playing into the center. He’s continuing to do what Barack Obama did. He’s not trying to embrace the entire American public, he’s embracing the people that think like him. She was embracing the people who look like her or think like her. That’s what happened. And that’s — I heard last night on CNN — I watched — oh. I watched all the networks last night, and I could not take it. You can see if you read my tweets by the end. I’m just — I’m losing my mind. But I actually heard — who was it? Who is the guy that does that globalist thing on CNN? It’s hard to narrow that down. (chuckling) GLENN: Fareed. STU: Oh, Fareed Zakaria, yeah. GLENN: Zakaria. Zakaria and Alan Dershowitz were going back and forth and yelling at each other. I shouldn’t say that. Dershowitz wasn’t. But Dershowitz was saying, “I’m not a fan of Donald Trump, but what he did here was legal. It was right. She was — yada, yada, yada. Zakaria, at one point, in the middle of Dershowitz just explaining, said, “I’m not even listening to you, Alan. I’m not listening to your explanation anymore. I’m just not listening to you, Alan.” I’m like, what — Alan Dershowitz is one of the brightest attorneys on the planet. And I don’t agree with him all the time, but he’s proven himself to be fairly reasonable on almost every topic. Again, I don’t agree with him, but he’s reasonable. For someone like Fareed to interrupt and just say, “I’m not listening to you,” that’s when I turned the TV off. I’m like, “Nobody is listening to each other anymore.” I was watching Fox, what did Fox do? The language of Fox made me or people like me feel pretty good. I’m like, “Yeah, get ’em.” I had to turn it off because I’m like, “This is not helpful. This is not helpful.” Honestly, I looked at my wife last night, I said, “Is it just us? Is it just us that sees how close to the edge we are?” And if we don’t start listening to each other, if we don’t start calming things down and not saying that it was a massacre last night — it was not a massacre. Let me give you this: Let’s see if I can find — try this on for size. In an article published Sunday on Medium — if you don’t know what Medium is, Medium is a really very smart blog site. It’s like — it’s Facebook for people who have patience. Okay? You can go and you can write posts, but it’s not designed for clicks. It’s designed for reading time. So it will tell you: This is a five-minute read. This is a ten-minute read. And instead of tracking clicks and shares and everything else, what they track is how long you’ve spent on that article. And so if people read the entire article and spend time with that article, that article is moved up. It shows that it’s — it’s engaging people and they’re thinking and reading it. So it’s a very different website. But it is — it’s — it’s much more geared toward I think a Silicon Valley kind of mindset. So it’s — it has very interesting points of view. Article published Sunday on Medium. Google privacy engineer, Yonatan Zunger, examined the details of what he believed was a sordid conspiracy among President Trump and his inner circle, which will lead to an eventual coup d’état. Now, listen to this. First he cited CNN, writing: It’s notable that this — that the DHS lawyers objected to this ban, this Muslim order, specifically the exclusion of green card holders, as illegal, and also pressed that there would be a grace period so people currently out of the country wouldn’t be stranded. And they were personally overruled by Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. Also notable is that career DHS staff, up to and including the head of customs and border patrol, were kept entirely out of the loop, until the order was signed. Next, he cites the Guardian, writing: The mass resignations of nearly all senior staff at the State Department on Thursday were not, in fact, resignations, but a purge ordered by the White House. This leaves almost no one in the entire senior staff of the State Department at this point. It leaves the State Department entirely unstaffed during these critical first weeks, when orders like the Muslim ban, which they would resist normally, are coming down. He then added: The DHS agents were still detaining and still deporting individuals, even after two major court rulings that said they can’t do that. Some of what Zunger writes is true, the story goes on. Insomuch as it comes from CNN and other reputable outlets, but it appears to be an extrapolation or an interpretation of the news. However, in the end, Zunger seems to believe that all the chaos means one thing: Quote, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS and other executive agencies can act and ignore orders from other branches of the government. This is as serious as it can possibly get. All of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional means nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored. Yesterday was a trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information. He also wrote that the orders are being made via the inner circle of Trump, Bannon, Miller, Priebus, Kushner, and possibly Flynn, and that the gutting of agencies and the shuffling of the National Security Council represents something nefarious. He speculated that Trump will want his personal security to take a higher position, writing: Keith Schiller should continue to run the personal security force which would take over an increasing fraction of the Secret Service’s job. He concluded, especially if combined with the DHS and the FBI, which appears to have remained loyal to the president throughout the recent transition, this creates an armature of a shadow government. Intelligence and police services, which are not accountable through any normal means, answerable only to the president. Zunger has chosen to view the absolute chaos of the last 72 hours as a trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. Nothing is out of the realm of possibility, and Trump’s rhetoric suggests he views governing with a more centralized eye than most. However, there is another possibility that bears mentioning.

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/01/31/sally-yates-the-lefts-new-hero/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170201GBDaily&utm_term=Glenn+Beck?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *