Sen. Chris Murphy Wants ‘No Screening’ for Immigrants, More Gun Control

by AWR HAWKINS30 Jan 2017

 

During a January 30 appearance on MSNBC’sMorning Joe, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) criticized President Trump’s immigration suspension and said he would rather see a move toward “no screening” and the passage of more gun control.

Murphy claimed that the U.S. has ISIS “on its heels,” and the suspension of immigration from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia will “[hand ISIS] a path to rebirth.”

Random House executive editor Jon Meacham was also on the program and asked Murphy, “Do you see any merit in the President’s action? What do you believe should be the security screening? What should be the vetting for immigrants coming in?”

Murphy responded by saying, “The four countries that were of origin for the 9/11 attackers, none of them are on this list,” and then quickly shifted to push “a discussion about a pathway in which there is absolutely no screening” for immigrants. He cited U.S./Europe agreements on the VISA waiver program as an example of U.S. entrance “without almost any security vet.”

He expounded:

So, I would go towards a sort of European bent in looking at screening. And then maybe let’s just make sure that if folks get to this country, and we suspect them of having connections to terrorism, that they shouldn’t be able to get an assault weapon. That’s a huge liability in our law today.

Also on the morning of January 30, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman appeared on CNN and suggested more gun control would keep the U.S. safer than President Trump’s immigration suspension. Like Murphy, Friedman focused on “assault weapons,” claiming the focus should be on barring persons on the terror watch list from buying such guns.

Both Murphy and Friedman overlooked the fact that neither of the San Bernardino attackers (December 2, 2015) nor the Orlando Pulse attacker (June 12, 2016) were on a terror watch list, so the passage of such gun control would have been impotent to stop them. The key to stopping attacks is keeping attackers out of the country or sending them out via deportation, once we realize they are here.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of “Bullets with AWR Hawkins,” a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

CNN: Islamic Group Excludes Breitbart from Press Event, then Slams Trump for Excluding Migrants

by BREITBART NEWS30 Jan 2017

A Breitbart editor was excluded from a press conference by the jihad-linked Council for American-Islamic Relations, just before the Islamic group argued that the administration is improperly excluding foreign Muslims from the United States.

CNN reported the head-turning sequence, saying that the Breitbart editor:

had already taken a seat for the presser at CAIR’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., where the group was set to detail its legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s immigration ban.

But the event hadn’t even started when [editor Neil] Munro was ordered to leave.

“This is America,” Munro protested. “We have freedom of speech, freedom of movement.”

The Breitbart editor had gone to CAIR’s press conference to ask questions about the new lawsuit by the group.

The CAIR-backed lawsuit asks judges to overturn the new pro-American immigration policy established by President Donald Trump, under which visitors and immigrants may be excluded if they oppose Americans’ culture and laws. Here’s the critical passage from Trump’s Friday order:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

That pro-American policy is a major problem for CAIR and other Islamic groups, because if fully implemented, it could sharply reduce the immigration of orthodox Muslims who endorse jihad war or sharia law in the United States. 

Breitbart has frequently noted that the CAIR group is so closely entwined with Islamists and with jihadis that court documents and news reports show that at least five of its people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated for various financial and terror-related offenses.

Breitbart has also published evidence highlighted by critics showing that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas-based criminal effort to deliver $12 million to the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group, that CAIR was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS, and that the FBI bans top-level meetings with CAIR officials. “ In 2009, a federal judge concluded that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with Hamas.”

CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation. 

You’re Fired: Trump Fires Attorney General for ‘Betrayal’

by CHARLIE SPIERING30 Jan 2017

President Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates, after she refused to defend his executive order to restrict immigration and refugees from six high-risk countries in the Middle East.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement saying that Yates, an Obama administration appointee, had “betrayed the Department of Justice” by refusing to enforce Trump’s order.

“Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration,” the statement read.

Trump replaced Yates with Dana Boente, the current U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, until Sen. Jeff Sessions is confirmed by the Senate.

“It is time to get serious about protecting our country,” Spicer’s statement continued. “Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.”

Trump’s PATCO Moment: Emanating Reagan, the President Takes Control of Federal Government to ‘Protect the Country and Its Citizens’

by MATTHEW BOYLE30 Jan 2017Washington, D.C.

President Donald Trump’s firing of a politically motivated official—now-former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, for her refusal to enforce the laws of the nation and carry out the administration’s policy—harkens back to a previous president who faced a similar crisis at the beginning of his administration.

CNN has been framing this in its lower-third chyron throughout the evening as “the Monday Night Massacre”—a reference to President Richard Nixon’s firing of both his Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General when they refused to get rid of a special prosecutor who was investigating him—with the intent to paint Trump as an off-the-rails tyrant. But even Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein, appearing on CNN late Monday night, rejected the comparison his own network CNN was making to the Nixon administration’s “Saturday Night Massacre.”

“There’s a big difference, because the Saturday Night Massacre was really about firing the attorney general when Nixon was the target of an investigation and was actively obstructing justice,” Bernstein said. “I think the president is within his rights here to fire the attorney general, that he has that ability.”

The reference that is much more accurate in this case is a reference to a different previous GOP president, an outsider battling to gain control of the federal government in his early days in office. Former White House political director Jeffrey Lord, who served under President Ronald Reagan, told Breitbart News that this matches Reagan’s battles with the bureaucracy at the beginning of his administration.

“I remember vividly when President Reagan fired the air traffic controllers—the PATCO union which had endorsed him as a candidate—in 1981,” Lord said in an email. “All of Washington was saying this was a mistake. He did it anyway, totally violating the Washington political and media elite conventional wisdom of the day. Kudos to President Trump for doing the 21st century version of Reagan’s bold firing to uphold principle. Elites will hate it but Americans will love it. More to the point they will get it.”

Back when President Reagan first took office, in the spring of 1981 while he was still recovering from the failed assassination attempt by John Hinckley, his Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis informed him that the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) planned to strike.

The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan wrote about the pivotal moment years later:

The union’s 17,000 workers manned radar centers and air traffic control towers across the country. These were tough, high-stakes, highly demanding federal jobs. The union’s contact was up, they had been working under increasingly difficult conditions, and they wanted a big pay increase. Lewis told me Reagan was sympathetic: The increased pressures of the job justified a pay increase, and he offered an 11% jump—this within a context of his budget cutting. But Patco demanded a 100% increase. This would cost taxpayers an estimated $700 million. Reagan rejected it outright. He told Lewis to tell the union that he would not accept an illegal strike, nor would he negotiate a contract while a strike was on. He instructed Lewis to tell the head of the union, Robert Poli, something else: As a former union president he was the best friend they’ve ever had in the White House.

PATCO was one of the few unions that backed Reagan in the 1980 presidential election, in which the then-newly seated president beat incumbent President Jimmy Carter in a shocking landslide win, and Reagan was—as Noonan wrote—someone who considered himself a “union man” and “didn’t want to be seen as a Republican union buster.” Noonan wrote:

Still, Reagan believed no president could or should tolerate an illegal strike by federal employees, especially those providing a vital government service. Not only was there a law against such strikes, each member of Patco had signed a sworn affidavit agreeing not to strike. Talks resumed, fell apart, and by the summer 70% of the air controllers walked out. They had thought Reagan was bluffing. He wouldn’t fire them, they thought, because it would endanger the economy and inconvenience hundreds of thousands of passengers—and for another reason, which we’ll get to in a moment.

Then, when the walkout happened, she wrote that it “became a crisis.” So, naturally, Reagan—a conservative with backbone—“did what he said he would do.”

“He refused to accept the strike and refused to resume negotiations,” she wrote. “He called reporters to the Rose Garden and read from a handwritten statement he’d composed the night before. If the strikers did not return to work within 48 hours, they would be fired—and not rehired. The 48 hours was meant as a cooling-off period. In the meantime, Reagan made clear, nonstriking controllers and supervisory personnel would keep the skies open.”

After a political catastrophe played itself out in the media on the world stage, Reagan won: He broke the strike by firing the more than 11,000 striking air traffic controllers and worked feverishly to replace them after banning them from federal service for life (Bill Clinton later lifted the ban). And, more importantly, he regained control. President Reagan showed he was in control of the federal bureaucracy, the millions-strong federal workforce that generally votes for Democrats not Republicans, and that the government was under his command. It was a defining moment.

Fast forward to early 2017, and President Trump is less than two weeks into his administration after defeating Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in a shocker landslide electoral college victory—where he won 306 electoral votes from 30 and a half states—stunning the media, the political class, and the federal bureaucracy to ascend to the highest office in the land. As an aside, Clinton’s failure to win even 20 full states was an embarrassment—especially since basically everyone in the political, cultural, and financial elite universe thought she would succeed.

Nonetheless, it was mostly smooth sailing for President Trump for his first week in office. Occasional media blowups from the usual anti-Trump suspects and scarce political opposition helped the newly inaugurated president of the United States make it through his first seven days in office easily. But on the seventh day, this past Friday, President Trump signed an executive order restricting immigration from seven terror-prone countries and putting a temporary pause on the refugee program. And over the weekend into early this week, all hell broke loose. The media lost control, Trump’s political opponents in both parties unleashed fierce criticism of the president, his policy, and the rollout process, while the media fanned the flames.

Then, on Monday evening, the storyline hit critical mass: Sally Yates, the Acting Attorney General of the United States, issued a directive to Justice Department employees that they should not enforce the president’s new executive order.

Yates, a political appointee from Trump’s predecessor, Democratic President Barack Obama, in the role of Deputy Attorney General, had agreed to stay on to help the peaceful transition of power to the Trump administration after the election. She was named, until her successor is confirmed, as the acting Attorney General. That means she agreed to follow the laws of the United States and execute the policies of the president of the United States—even ones with which she disagreed politically. The question she faced is whether Trump’s order was legally defensible. Trump’s team ran the order through the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. They determined it was legal. Therefore, Yates’ duty was to enforce the laws of the United States—and uphold the Constitution—as directed by the President of the United States, something she knew when she accepted the position to help with the peaceful transition of power.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the incoming Attorney General, is likely to be confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and by the full U.S. Senate later this week. That means Yates’ decision to break her oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States and the policies of the president comes just days before she was going to lose her temporary appointment anyway. But, it also presented a critical moment for President Trump. Let career government bureaucrats and politically motivated ex-Obama officials who are serving in similar capacities throughout the administration—sources with direct knowledge of transition efforts tell Breitbart News there are approximately 50 such politically-appointed ex-Obama officials still serving in key governmental positions as the transition continues—run over him and cause him to lose control? Or show the millions-strong governmental workforce, regardless of any particular government worker’s ideology, who is the boss?

Trump chose the latter and, in true Trumpian fashion, treated America and the world to his signature catchphrase from The Apprentice reality television show: “You’re Fired.” Trump canned Yates almost instantly. Then, he brought in a new Acting Attorney General, Dana Boente—the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia—to enforce the laws of the nation.

The press release from the White House was strong, ripping Yates for her “betrayal” of the Department of Justice and for being “weak” on immigration and national security. the Trump White House said:

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. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country. Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

The statement then quoted Boente as saying he intends to uphold the laws of the country and faithfully execute the office of the Attorney General while he is acting in that position—something Yates, for political purposes, refused to do.

“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” Boente, identified after the quote as Acting Attorney General of the United States of America, said.

The White House is playing this bold move, in which President Trump retook control and showed the government who’s in charge, cool for now.

“The president acted to protect the country and its citizens,” Sean Spicer, White House Press Secretary, told Breitbart News late Monday evening.

But outside allies and top Trump supporters are ecstatic. Rick Manning, the president of Americans for Limited Government, told Breitbart News:

Donald Trump demonstrated today that he refuses to allow a politically motivated Obama appointee who fell into the role of Acting Attorney General due to the intransigence of Democrats in the Senate to overturn the will of the people. The immediate replacement of this remnant of Obama’s open borders policy was both warranted and necessary. America is fortunate to have a decisive leader in the White House who is determined to not allow those who lost the election to dictate how he will govern.

“President Trump is to be commended for upholding the rule of law in firing Yates for her politicization of the Justice Department,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton added in an emailed statement to Breitbart News.

While the political class and media are ripping Trump and his administration over this for now, this may prove—when the history books are written—to be one of the most decisive moments in his presidency. And while there are certainly questions as to whether–despite the widespread popularity of Trump’s action–the rollout of his executive order was done effectively, Yates’ betrayal and Trump’s quick seizure of the moment could be the pivot point that turns the tide of the narrative back in his direction after a rough past few days. For now, Trump is winning again–and he’s in charge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RASMUSSEN POLL: CLEAR MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT TRUMP’S TRAVEL BAN

Only 33% oppose block on individuals from terror-linked countries

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - JANUARY 30, 2017

A new Rasmussen poll finds that 57 per cent of Americans support President Trump’s travel ban on people arriving from terror-linked countries, with just 33 per cent opposing the measure.

Asked if they support a temporary 90 day ban on “refugees” from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, a clear majority of Americans back Trump, despite widespread media criticism of the executive order.

The poll also found that Americans support a visa block on all individuals from those same countries by a margin of 56 per cent to 32 per cent.

The survey has a +/- 3 percentage points margin of error with a 95% level of confidence.

“Most voters opposed former President Obama’s plan to bring tens of thousands of Middle Eastern and African refugees here this year. Sixty-two percent (62%) said Obama’s plan posed an increased national security risk to the United States,” reports Rasmussen.

The poll was conducted before this weekend’s protests, although given the behavior of some of the protesters, it’s unknown whether that would increase or decrease support for the measure amongst Americans.

As we document in the video below, the media has completely misrepresented the issue and whipped up yet more hysteria by characterizing the executive order as a “Muslim ban,” when in fact it is based on a list of countries decided upon by the Obama administration.

In addition, not a single citizen from the top five Muslim-populated countries is affected by the ban. 87% of Muslims worldwide are not affected by the ban.

FLASHBACK: ANTI-TRUMP DEMS OPPOSED VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Dems said refugees shown more compassion than Americans, questioned lack of vetting

Clifford Cunningham | Infowars.com - JANUARY 30, 2017

Despite their outrage over President Donald Trump’s executive order barring refugees from seven primarily Muslim countries, numerous far-left Democrats once opposed admitting refugees fleeing the collapse of South Vietnam.

While citizens of South Vietnam sought refuge in the United States following their country’s defeat by communist forces from North Vietnam, many liberal Democrats opposed efforts by Republican President Gerald Ford to admit them.

The group of Democrats included then-Governor of California Jerry Brown (who currently serves as the state’s governor), then-Delaware Senator Joe Biden, former Presidential candidate and South Dakota Senator George McGovern, and New York Representative Elizabeth Holtzman.

“As a rookie governor when Saigon fell in 1975 and the U.S. was flying Vietnamese refugees to America, Brown was outspokenly opposed,” reported the Los Angeles Times in 2015.

In particular, Brown said in 1975: “There is something a little strange about saying, ‘Let’s bring in 500,000 more people’ when we can’t take care of the 1 million [Californians] out of work.”

His administration even attempted to block planes carrying Vietnamese refugees from landing at Travis Air Force Base near San Francisco.

Julia Taft, who directed Ford’s Task Force on Indochinese refugee resettlement, told author Larry Engelmann in his book, Tears Before the Rain: An Oral History of the Fall of South Vietnam, “The new governor of California, Jerry Brown, was very concerned about refugees settling in his state.”

“Our biggest problem came from California,” Taft said during an interview with NPR in 2007.”They didn’t want any of these refugees, because they had also unemployment. They had already a large number of foreign-born people there.”

“They had – they said they had too many Hispanics, too many people on welfare, they didn’t want these people.”

In his attempt to settle Vietnamese refugees, President Ford also met resistance from many liberal Democratic members of Congress.

Liberal New York Representative Elizabeth Holtzman opposed helping the refugees, arguing “some of her constituents felt that the same assistance and compassion was not being shown to the elderly, unemployed and poor in this country.”

Delaware Senator (and, most recently, Vice President of the United States) Joe Biden tried to stall passage of the refugee bill in the Senate, complaining that he needed more details about the refugee situation because the Ford administration “had not informed Congress adequately about the number of refugees.”

Pennsylvania Representative Joshua Eilberg, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law, accused President Ford of acting “with unnecessary haste” in organizing the airlift of orphans from collapsing South Vietnam.

South Dakota Senator George McGovern, who was decisively defeated by Richard Nixon in the 1972 Presidential election, went so far as to introduce a bill to assist refugees who wished to return to the country, despite its occupation by North Vietnamese Communist forces, suggesting most of the refugees “would be better off going back to their own land.”

BREAKING: BOY SCOUTS WILL NOW ALLOW TRANSGENDER CHILDREN

Group removes previous policy over "state laws interpreting gender identity differently"

The Boy Scouts of America announced Monday that transgender children who identify as male will be permitted to enroll in their boys-only programs.

According to a statement from the organization, eligibility now depends only on whether the child or parent chooses ‘male’ as the gender on enrollment applications – removing previous policy that required the child to rely on the gender from their birth certificate.

“For more than 100 years, the Boy Scouts of America, along with schools, youth sports and other youth organizations, have ultimately deferred to the information on an individual’s birth certificate to determine eligibility for our single-gender programs,” Boy Scouts of America communications director Effie Delimarkos said in a statement. “However, that approach is no longer sufficient as communities and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these laws vary widely from state to state.”

“Starting today, we will accept and register youth in the Cub and Boy Scout programs based on the gender identity indicated on the application.”

As noted by Reuters, the group voted in 2013 to remove a ban on openly gay scouts before lifting its ban on gay adult leaders in 2015.