They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[Monker]

[Boomchild]

A 25 year State Department veteran who has worked directly with the refugee program talks about the reality of it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

Totally anonymous, of course.

So you guys automatically believe that, but you won't buy into Stern's remarks about Donald? Tsk, tsk.

The editorial article is not "anonymous". Her name appears at the end of the article. Which is Mary Doetsch.

Her name can be found under the "Foreign Service Transfers" on page 44 in this internal department magazine published for the State Department.

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/191084.pdf

Here is a document published by Wikileaks which is about granting her clearance for her job with the State Department.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WL0709/S ... oetsch.htm

[Monker]

Ain't it the truth.

http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-g ... 87969.html

Oh, yes, liberals are not tolerant. They need to be more tolerant of racism, bigotry, talk of sexual assault, lies and hate. You know, all those things Donald Trump and Republicans want to be and support. We should all be tolerant of an attorney general who is a racist. Liberals should know better then to quote to congress Coretta Scott King during the confirmation of a racist AG, especially when those words were ALREADY SPOKEN without issue the last time Jeff Sessions had confirmation hearings. Liberals should know better than to be disgusted when a Presidential candidate berates women and candidly talks about how his power and stardom allows him to sexually assault them. Liberals should be tolerant of hatred towards LGBT community. LIberals need to just let everybody be their asshole selves.

Thank you for PROVING Tim Scott's point. Democrats had no problem reelecting Robert Byrd. Sessions defeated the Klan in Court, Byrd was a leader of it. Byrd was reelected until he died. A hero to the left. I could go on, but wasted time on morons, so I'll just let them be their asshole selves.

And, Byrd was not nominated to the Supreme Court. If he was, I would be opposed to it for the very same reasons.

[UncleKG]

What?! Flynn and Pence lied about discussing sanctions with the Russians? I am SHOCKED. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.7d406e761577

[UncleKG]

"SEE YOU IN COURT!"

Ummm...you already have, and you're 0-2. Maybe go back and revisit your plan and make it something that everyone can agree on? No one wants terrorists in this country, but your order is obviously flawed.

[UncleKG]

Based on his comments of a couple of days ago (and he may well have been "joking"), "Fake News 45" is apparently a fan of civil asset forfeiture, aka "law enforcement can take your home, money, etc., without ever charging you with a crime." So is his Attorney General. Always looking out for the average joe.

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/12/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-a-big-fan-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/

[UncleKG]

"SEE YOU IN COURT!"

Ummm...you already have, and you're 0-2. Maybe go back and revisit your plan and make it something that everyone can agree on? No one wants terrorists in this country, but your order is obviously flawed.

Um, Congress agreed on the law in 1952, it couldn't be clearer unless you are a judicial activist or just plain dumb. OR IF YOU JUST WANT TRUMP TO LOSE.

“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.”

Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm going to defer to the judges who practice law to determine the legality of the "ban." Seems that if the law was that crystal clear, "Fake News 45" would have won at both levels so far.

[UncleKG]

This nice lady immigrated from Pakistan and helped kill 14 people at a Christmas party, she was supposedly vetted.

We should definitely be focusing our attention and resources on those who pose the biggest threat to American citizens.

“Law enforcement agencies in the United States consider anti-government violent extremists, not radicalized Muslims, to be the most severe threat of political violence that they face,” the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security reported this past June, based on surveys of 382 law enforcement groups."

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

But it appears "Fake News 45" wants to revamp and focus our counter-extremism efforts solely on Islam. Brilliant.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO

[UncleKG]

Well, now I know you're a nutter. Thanks. Where does BLM and the Antifa rioters fit in your world view?

If they're killing people, they're a problem. Don't blame the messenger. This is what law enforcement is saying, not me.

But what does the Department of Homeland Security know? http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/terror-threat-homeland-security/

[UncleKG]

24 incidents in 5 years is hardly a crime wave.

But six in the past five years IS? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

[UncleKG]

24 incidents in 5 years is hardly a crime wave.

But six in the past five years IS? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Worldwide there were tons of Muslim attacks. Call me when the skinheads blow up Mecca and kill 3000 or more. France is building a wall around the Eiffel Tower because of these pukes, you want a wall around Disneyworld?

So, you're saying extreme right wing terrorism is a non-issue? There's some families in Oklahoma and Charleston who might disagree with you.

Pssstt...we aren't France. We have a vetting system in place. Besides which, until countries like Saudi Arabia (you remember that whole 9/11 thing, right) are added to the list, don't try to tell me this is anything other than political theater.

[UncleKG]

:wink:

Except at least one is not a Democrat. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/here-are-the-judges-who-will-rule-on-trumps-travel-ban/

[UncleKG]

Just admit it, you want Trump to look bad no matter what. In your zeal to accomplish that you will throw all rhyme and reason and logic out the window to reach the goal. Damn the consequences. You do realize, I hope, that if there is an attack on America in the next few months that the left and these Judges in particular will have blood on their hands. But if Trump looks bad that'll be okie dokie with you and Monker. We get it.

Please explain to me how it is "rhyme, reason and logic" to not include countries like Saudi Arabia in the ban. You know, countries that have actually produced terrorists who've killed on American soil.

I don't have to make "Fake News 45" look bad. He and his cronies are accomplishing that all on their own.

The buck stops with the Department of Homeland Security, those that oversee the vetting process, and the President. If he drafts an executive order the Supreme Court ultimately determines does not pass legal muster, that's on him and his administration.

[Memorex]

Just admit it, you want Trump to look bad no matter what. In your zeal to accomplish that you will throw all rhyme and reason and logic out the window to reach the goal. Damn the consequences. You do realize, I hope, that if there is an attack on America in the next few months that the left and these Judges in particular will have blood on their hands. But if Trump looks bad that'll be okie dokie with you and Monker. We get it.

Please explain to me how it is "rhyme, reason and logic" to not include countries like Saudi Arabia in the ban. You know, countries that have actually produced terrorists who've killed on American soil.

I don't have to make "Fake News 45" look bad. He and his cronies are accomplishing that all on their own.

The buck stops with the Department of Homeland Security, those that oversee the vetting process, and the President. If he drafts an executive order the Supreme Court ultimately determines does not pass legal muster, that's on him and his administration.

Why did Obama ban Iraqi's for 6 months and not Saudi Arabia?

[UncleKG]

Just admit it, you want Trump to look bad no matter what. In your zeal to accomplish that you will throw all rhyme and reason and logic out the window to reach the goal. Damn the consequences. You do realize, I hope, that if there is an attack on America in the next few months that the left and these Judges in particular will have blood on their hands. But if Trump looks bad that'll be okie dokie with you and Monker. We get it.

Please explain to me how it is "rhyme, reason and logic" to not include countries like Saudi Arabia in the ban. You know, countries that have actually produced terrorists who've killed on American soil.

I don't have to make "Fake News 45" look bad. He and his cronies are accomplishing that all on their own.

The buck stops with the Department of Homeland Security, those that oversee the vetting process, and the President. If he drafts an executive order the Supreme Court ultimately determines does not pass legal muster, that's on him and his administration.

Why did Obama ban Iraqi's for 6 months and not Saudi Arabia?

Well, first off, he didn't "ban" Iraqi's. He slowed down the approval process. Second, it was because they discovered two Iraqi terrorists had slipped through, so they went back through all 58,000 and revetted them. In other words, evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.703cdc7bf651

[verslibre]

So when do Drump & daughter quit having all their shit made overseas and "bring jobs back"?

[UncleKG]

Uncle didn't answer your question, just obfuscated again. Why not Saudis Uncle?

Actually, I did. I said "evidence." They had evidence Iraqi terrorists had made it into the country. They (apparently) didn't have any evidence Saudis did the same. So, again (and to repeat myself), "evidence."

[Monker]

Monker wrote:

So, it should be no problem at all for you to find a pic of a known terrorist going about killing people, and then find him in the US after he went through all of the REFUGEE vetting.



Too easy, and tell me, were the Orlando, San Bernadino and and others 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation Americans? No, they and their families were recent immigrants in the last 20 or 30 years

.

So? They are not refugees...a word I put in all CAPS above.

And here's a hint Monker, we don't know who might be a KNOWN terrorist unless the Russians (or other Govs) tell us like they did with the Tsarnaev brothers. The terrorist usually don't carry business cards and try and look normal when traveling across borders.

,
So? Again, show me the current vetting and what, SPECIFICALY, you do not like about the current vetting...and show me what you want to change it to.

I have asked THREE TIMES and no answer...probably because Trump has said nothing other than "extreme vetting". The problem is - that is what is already happening.

[Boomchild]

It's the 9th Circus Court, they do this all the time to Conservative causes, that's why the libs always file out west and find an "aggrieved" party. The 9th is the most overturned Court in America because of their judicial activism. It's very well known. They don't give a shit about the law or Constitution, they will try and legislate from the bench and totally ignore the laws they swore to uphold because they don't like them. Thomas Sowell famously said years ago, "Someday the 9th Circut will find the Constitution unconstitutional."

Here is the deal with this. The court was not ruling on President Trump's power to enact an executive order to halt accepting travel from the identified countries. The case centered around whether or not undo harm was being caused to those that already have a green card or visas to enter the U.S.. The way in which the executive order was written, didn't address this issue. The WH only addressed it after the fact which hasn't changed the language of the executive order. Having said that, the court should not have heard arguments about the "religion" aspect. The order does not contain any language referencing "religion". The state's arguments about what President Trump said during and after the election about a ban is irrelevant. What only matters is the language in the executive order. Whether you do or don't agree with what happened here, in some respects this is a good thing. The way our system is structured is to prevent any President being able to operate like a King. What President Trump most likely will do is reverse this order and issue a new one that addresses the issues brought up in this case. You can expect the states to go through the new one as well looking for "holes" to attack it. Trump's administration has to be very careful when crafting these things to limit the possibility of being challenged. We all know the drill here though. The opposition is going to challenge everything this administration puts forth or supports.

[Monker]

Um, Congress agreed on the law in 1952, it couldn't be clearer unless you are a judicial activist or just plain dumb. OR IF YOU JUST WANT TRUMP TO LOSE.

“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.”



Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm going to defer to the judges who practice law to determine the legality of the "ban." Seems that if the law was that crystal clear, "Fake News 45" would have won at both levels so far.

The appeals court is essentially saying that the state had evidence for their case that the executive order was causing harm to those carrying VISA's, their families, their businesses, and the state of Washington. The federal government offerend NO EVIDENCE that allowing these people into the country would cause harm. Their argument is essentially what (alternative) Fact Finder posted...that the order was the President addressing a security issue and the courts had no business interfering.

So, the courts sided with the state because they actually brought evidence to trial and the federal government did not.

Trump is not king. With his leadership skills, he's barely President.

[Boomchild]

Well, now I know you're a nutter. Thanks. Where does BLM and the Antifa rioters fit in your world view?

Damaging public and private property is a crime. Causing physical harm to someone is a crime even if it doesn't cause death. The bottom line is our law enforcement agencies are charged with arresting and prosecuting individuals that commit such crimes. It's their duty and the public has the right to expect them to fulfill it.

[Monker]

Fact Finder wrote:
Just admit it, you want Trump to look bad no matter what. In your zeal to accomplish that you will throw all rhyme and reason and logic out the window to reach the goal. Damn the consequences. You do realize, I hope, that if there is an attack on America in the next few months that the left and these Judges in particular will have blood on their hands. But if Trump looks bad that'll be okie dokie with you and Monker. We get it.

yeah, yeah, Repeating Trump's words...

Donald Judas Trump looks bad because he is a bad leader. Blaming other people for the consequences of your own mistakes is poor leadership. HE rushed these Executive Orders. HE rushed it before he had an AG to review it. HE did not review it was DOS. HE is the one responsible for the poor wording, even if someone like Rudy or even Steve Bannon wrote it. These were his mistakes and now he is paying a consequence for them...a good leader would admit it and not blame other.

[Monker]

the court should not have heard arguments about the "religion" aspect. The order does not contain any language referencing "religion".

Wrong. The order says it will show preference to those who are in a minority religion in their country....which is a way to give preference to Christians. That opens up questioning what the intent truly was with this order...and the evnidence of Guiliani saying Trump gave him the task to make his idea of banning Muslims "legal".

The state's arguments about what President Trump said during and after the election about a ban is irrelevant.

Not true, see above.

What President Trump most likely will do is reverse this order and issue a new one that addresses the issues brought up in this case. You can expect the states to go through the new one as well looking for "holes" to attack it.

It will go through the exact same process almost as soon as it is released. I'm sure there will be exceptions for green cards...but if he adds the exception for current VISA holders, well, that defeats the purpose of what he is trying to do...and makes Trump look like a tiny hand clown.

Trump's administration has to be very careful when crafting these things to limit the possibility of being challenged. We all know the drill here though. The opposition is going to challenge everything this administration puts forth or supports.

That is paranoia. I said as soon as Trump proposed banning all Muslims that it would be in court and struck down as unConstitutional. FF quoted the crap he did just recently. I was right. He was wrong.

Trump needs to get off the executive orders and start leading his party and the country. The Wall order is irrelevent. The ban order is unconstitutional. The rest are relatively smallish. When is he going to propose how to fund the Wall? When is he going to propose TrumpCare? When is he going to fix his tiny hands?

[verslibre]

So when do Drump & daughter quit having all their shit made overseas and "bring jobs back"?

When he has a cabinet and can pass laws. No clothing is made in america.

Puhleez. They can stop having their crap made over there yesterday...IF they choose to do so.

[Memorex]

5:20 p.m. update: U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, has confirmed what many on social media throughout Texas have suspected: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are conducting sweeping raids and arrests across the country.
“I have been informed by ICE that the agency’s San Antonio field office has launched a targeted operation in South and Central Texas as part of Operation Cross Check,” Castro said in a statement. “I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state. I will continue to monitor this situation.”

He said he would focus on dangerous folks first and see what remains afterward. I hope that's what he is doing. Eventually, everyone should be gone or legal, but let's get rid of the thugs first, see what the fallout is, and then go from there.

[Boomchild]

Federal agents conduct sweeping immigration enforcement raids in at least 6 states

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... dffba072f5

Nice to see that these agents are finally back to doing their job.

[Boomchild]

5:20 p.m. update: U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, has confirmed what many on social media throughout Texas have suspected: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are conducting sweeping raids and arrests across the country.
“I have been informed by ICE that the agency’s San Antonio field office has launched a targeted operation in South and Central Texas as part of Operation Cross Check,” Castro said in a statement. “I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state. I will continue to monitor this situation.”

He said he would focus on dangerous folks first and see what remains afterward. I hope that's what he is doing. Eventually, everyone should be gone or legal, but let's get rid of the thugs first, see what the fallout is, and then go from there.

I hate to burst Castro's bubble but even those that are here peacefully aren't exempt from being arrested and made to answer for their crime of entering the country illegally. That is the law and ICE agents have the jurisdiction to enforce the law.

[Boomchild]

Didn't Obama order the Border Patrol to do catch and release? Hell, if that just got stopped we could put a crimp on the crossings. Let the BP do their job and let ICE do theirs. I've been under the impression that those agencies have been sort of in stand down mode for 8 years. I believe that most LEO's have a good idea where 75% of these people are, they know the good from the bad and legal from illegal. All is takes is the order to go and it's game on. Butler County, the county north of Cincinnati regularly has a local jail population of between 14 and 25% illegal immigrants on any given day. That is a huge local economic issue here where Trump won Bigly.

It's my understanding that those that were being caught at the border were being processed and immediately returned to Mexico. It has been stated that the Obama administration was using those "boomerang" returns to inflate their deportation statistics. The "catch and release" mainly pertained to those caught beyond the border.

[Memorex]

5:20 p.m. update: U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, has confirmed what many on social media throughout Texas have suspected: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are conducting sweeping raids and arrests across the country.
“I have been informed by ICE that the agency’s San Antonio field office has launched a targeted operation in South and Central Texas as part of Operation Cross Check,” Castro said in a statement. “I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state. I will continue to monitor this situation.”

He said he would focus on dangerous folks first and see what remains afterward. I hope that's what he is doing. Eventually, everyone should be gone or legal, but let's get rid of the thugs first, see what the fallout is, and then go from there.

I hate to burst Castro's bubble but even those that are here peacefully aren't exempt from being arrested and made to answer for their crime of entering the country illegally. That is the law and ICE agents have the jurisdiction to enforce the law.

I get it, but if you ask me where I want my tax payer money going, it's on the gang bangers, robbery dudes, rapists, etc. Not a mother that has been here since she was 14 and has 2 kids. Not saying she should not answer, but whatever the cost to us is for processing her is better spent getting rid of real threats.

[Boomchild]

I get it, but if you ask me where I want my tax payer money going, it's on the gang bangers, robbery dudes, rapists, etc. Not a mother that has been here since she was 14 and has 2 kids. Not saying she should not answer, but whatever the cost to us is for processing her is better spent getting rid of real threats.

I 100% agree. If they are caught coming back then they should receive a long prison term followed by deportation again.