jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Justice Department advised not to defend Trump?s travel ban
By Daniel Halper January 30, 2017 | 6:59pm |

In an extraordinary move, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend President Trump?s executive order blocking immigrants from seven mostly Muslim countries.

?I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution?s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,? Yates said in an email to lawyers of the Civil Division on Monday.

?At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful,? she added.

More

Sally Yates has just been fired by Trump.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Five people were killed after gunmen opened fire in a Quebec City mosque during evening prayers, the mosque?s president told reporters on Sunday.

Earlier, a witness told Reuters that up to three gunmen fired on about 40 people inside the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Center. Police put up a security perimeter around the mosque and declined to comment to reporters about the incident.

?Why is this happening here? This is barbaric,? said the mosque?s president, Mohamed Yangui.

In June 2016, a pig?s head was left on the doorstep of the cultural centre.

Yangui, who was not inside the mosque when the shooting occurred, said he got frantic calls from people at evening prayers. He did not know how many were injured, saying they had been taken to different hospitals across Quebec City.

Incidents of Islamophobia increased in Quebec in recent years amid a political debate over banning the niqab, or Muslim face covering. In 2013, police investigated after a mosque in the Saguenay region of Quebec was splattered with what was believed to be pig blood.

In the neighboring province of Ontario, a mosque was set on fire in 2015, a day after an attack by gunmen and suicide bombers in Paris.

Source

Also - Texas Mosque 'Completely Destroyed' in Early-Morning Fire

Witnesses reported the gunmen were screaming Allahu Akbar! Both had a Quebecois accent.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montrea ... osque-gun-shots-1.3957686

Yet again, thank God that Trump was elected and the emotional children lost!!!

jerseymom wrote:
Justice Department advised not to defend Trump?s travel ban
By Daniel Halper January 30, 2017 | 6:59pm |

In an extraordinary move, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend President Trump?s executive order blocking immigrants from seven mostly Muslim countries.

?I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution?s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,? Yates said in an email to lawyers of the Civil Division on Monday.

?At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful,? she added.

More

jerseymom wrote:
Justice Department advised not to defend Trump?s travel ban
By Daniel Halper January 30, 2017 | 6:59pm |

In an extraordinary move, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend President Trump?s executive order blocking immigrants from seven mostly Muslim countries.

?I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution?s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,? Yates said in an email to lawyers of the Civil Division on Monday.

?At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful,? she added.

More

TheBigGuy wrote:
Here is what The Boston Bomber family received in between trips back "home" to Chechnya to learn how to make bombs out of pressure cookers!

Http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opin ... received_100g_in_benefits

Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits. Most of these programs require proof of legal immigration status and under the 1996 welfare law, even legal immigrants cannot receive these benefits until they have been in the United States for more than five years.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Especially since many of those European immigrants were dirt poor and social pariahs in their own countries of origin.

It's also true that the US banned some Jews from entering the country when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. Is that where Trump wants us to return to as a country?

That is the history of America and some people here seem to have a terrible grasp of history. The real history, not the alternative kind.

Add yourself to the list.

In the real history of America, immigration policy was settled by the question: will accepting these immigrants benefit our nation?

It's true that we took plenty of unskilled immigrants, but that's because there was plenty of unskilled work that needed to be done. Working to construct the railroads was one huge project.

We never had some kind of open door policy, and it's not going to happen now. It would be unsustainable given our generous social services which are available for immigrants.

And your terrible analogy to the Jews was already debunked in the Atlantic article I posted. Not to mention, the safe zones that President Trump is working to establish in the Middle East will be a safe place for refugees to live.

It's true that there were economic reasons for accepting immigrants in the past. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is areas of responsibility. We not only have military footprints in many of these countries, we are actually engaged in the conflicts that arose from many of these displacements. The Jewish analogy fits in because we got involved in World War II and we became very much involved in the fate of the Jewish people. Whether you agree in our involvement in these affairs or not, we do bear a responsibility since we are involved.

No, we don't bear this kind of responsibility, and will fulfill any humanitarian obligations through the safe zones.

The Jewish analogy is horrible for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that these Muslims are killing each other. If the analogy applies at all, it is to a religious minority, which are the Syrian Christians.

You know, the same ones that Obama seemed to go out of his way to reject. Christians are 10% of Syria's population yet made up less than 1% of Syrian refugees admitted last year.

That's why Trump wil be prioritizing them, once the refugee ban is lifted. And even then I would argue we don't have the responsibility to take them. But if you're going to use the Jewish analogy, that's where it goes.

That's your opinion, that you think safe zones are enough. Apparently it wasn't, ever since we invaded Iraq. I wonder why?

There is no real evidence that Obama rejected Christian refugees but we do have Trump saying he would start a Muslim ban during his presidential campaign. Too bad his ban also affected Christian refugees.

No, it is not just my opinion. In fact, we had an election on this very issue. As I'm sure you will acknowledge, the different policy stances were communicated loud and clear. Everyone knew the platforms of each candidate. And Trump won.

What people like these protesters are doing is essentially being a sore loser. I include you in this group because you are trying to skirt the fact that Trump is merely doing exactly what was promised. Something I, and 60 million other Americans, strongly believe is in our own best interest for our long term future. And you seem to be sneakily claiming that my stance is a mere "opinion," making yours fact. When it just simply isn't the case.

At best, you have a contrary opinion that was put on the ballot and rejected.

The only legitimate objection one could have to Trump's orders is the fact that some green card holders initially seemed to be banned as well. But that was quickly cleared up as a mistake in administering the order, and green card holders can travel back and forth, albeit with extra questioning. The refugee issue is settled, and as I said, we don't have a responsibility to bring them here.

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Especially since many of those European immigrants were dirt poor and social pariahs in their own countries of origin.

It's also true that the US banned some Jews from entering the country when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. Is that where Trump wants us to return to as a country?

That is the history of America and some people here seem to have a terrible grasp of history. The real history, not the alternative kind.

Add yourself to the list.

In the real history of America, immigration policy was settled by the question: will accepting these immigrants benefit our nation?

It's true that we took plenty of unskilled immigrants, but that's because there was plenty of unskilled work that needed to be done. Working to construct the railroads was one huge project.

We never had some kind of open door policy, and it's not going to happen now. It would be unsustainable given our generous social services which are available for immigrants.

And your terrible analogy to the Jews was already debunked in the Atlantic article I posted. Not to mention, the safe zones that President Trump is working to establish in the Middle East will be a safe place for refugees to live.

It's true that there were economic reasons for accepting immigrants in the past. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is areas of responsibility. We not only have military footprints in many of these countries, we are actually engaged in the conflicts that arose from many of these displacements. The Jewish analogy fits in because we got involved in World War II and we became very much involved in the fate of the Jewish people. Whether you agree in our involvement in these affairs or not, we do bear a responsibility since we are involved.

No, we don't bear this kind of responsibility, and will fulfill any humanitarian obligations through the safe zones.

The Jewish analogy is horrible for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that these Muslims are killing each other. If the analogy applies at all, it is to a religious minority, which are the Syrian Christians.

You know, the same ones that Obama seemed to go out of his way to reject. Christians are 10% of Syria's population yet made up less than 1% of Syrian refugees admitted last year.

That's why Trump wil be prioritizing them, once the refugee ban is lifted. And even then I would argue we don't have the responsibility to take them. But if you're going to use the Jewish analogy, that's where it goes.

That's your opinion, that you think safe zones are enough. Apparently it wasn't, ever since we invaded Iraq. I wonder why?

There is no real evidence that Obama rejected Christian refugees but we do have Trump saying he would start a Muslim ban during his presidential campaign. Too bad his ban also affected Christian refugees.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Especially since many of those European immigrants were dirt poor and social pariahs in their own countries of origin.

It's also true that the US banned some Jews from entering the country when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. Is that where Trump wants us to return to as a country?

That is the history of America and some people here seem to have a terrible grasp of history. The real history, not the alternative kind.

Add yourself to the list.

In the real history of America, immigration policy was settled by the question: will accepting these immigrants benefit our nation?

It's true that we took plenty of unskilled immigrants, but that's because there was plenty of unskilled work that needed to be done. Working to construct the railroads was one huge project.

We never had some kind of open door policy, and it's not going to happen now. It would be unsustainable given our generous social services which are available for immigrants.

And your terrible analogy to the Jews was already debunked in the Atlantic article I posted. Not to mention, the safe zones that President Trump is working to establish in the Middle East will be a safe place for refugees to live.

It's true that there were economic reasons for accepting immigrants in the past. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is areas of responsibility. We not only have military footprints in many of these countries, we are actually engaged in the conflicts that arose from many of these displacements. The Jewish analogy fits in because we got involved in World War II and we became very much involved in the fate of the Jewish people. Whether you agree in our involvement in these affairs or not, we do bear a responsibility since we are involved.

No, we don't bear this kind of responsibility, and will fulfill any humanitarian obligations through the safe zones.

The Jewish analogy is horrible for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that these Muslims are killing each other. If the analogy applies at all, it is to a religious minority, which are the Syrian Christians.

You know, the same ones that Obama seemed to go out of his way to reject. Christians are 10% of Syria's population yet made up less than 1% of Syrian refugees admitted last year.

That's why Trump wil be prioritizing them, once the refugee ban is lifted. And even then I would argue we don't have the responsibility to take them. But if you're going to use the Jewish analogy, that's where it goes.

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Especially since many of those European immigrants were dirt poor and social pariahs in their own countries of origin.

It's also true that the US banned some Jews from entering the country when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. Is that where Trump wants us to return to as a country?

That is the history of America and some people here seem to have a terrible grasp of history. The real history, not the alternative kind.

Add yourself to the list.

In the real history of America, immigration policy was settled by the question: will accepting these immigrants benefit our nation?

It's true that we took plenty of unskilled immigrants, but that's because there was plenty of unskilled work that needed to be done. Working to construct the railroads was one huge project.

We never had some kind of open door policy, and it's not going to happen now. It would be unsustainable given our generous social services which are available for immigrants.

And your terrible analogy to the Jews was already debunked in the Atlantic article I posted. Not to mention, the safe zones that President Trump is working to establish in the Middle East will be a safe place for refugees to live.

It's true that there were economic reasons for accepting immigrants in the past. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is areas of responsibility. We not only have military footprints in many of these countries, we are actually engaged in the conflicts that arose from many of these displacements. The Jewish analogy fits in because we got involved in World War II and we became very much involved in the fate of the Jewish people. Whether you agree in our involvement in these affairs or not, we do bear a responsibility since we are involved.

stillinjc wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:

Time to come together.

Kinda tough to come together when an SNL writer tweets that Barron Trump will become America's first homeschool shooter.

They are going after a 10-year old.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Especially since many of those European immigrants were dirt poor and social pariahs in their own countries of origin.

It's also true that the US banned some Jews from entering the country when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. Is that where Trump wants us to return to as a country?

That is the history of America and some people here seem to have a terrible grasp of history. The real history, not the alternative kind.

Add yourself to the list.

In the real history of America, immigration policy was settled by the question: will accepting these immigrants benefit our nation?

It's true that we took plenty of unskilled immigrants, but that's because there was plenty of unskilled work that needed to be done. Working to construct the railroads was one huge project.

We never had some kind of open door policy, and it's not going to happen now. It would be unsustainable given our generous social services which are available for immigrants.

And your terrible analogy to the Jews was already debunked in the Atlantic article I posted. Not to mention, the safe zones that President Trump is working to establish in the Middle East will be a safe place for refugees to live.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Especially since many of those European immigrants were dirt poor and social pariahs in their own countries of origin.

It's also true that the US banned some Jews from entering the country when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. Is that where Trump wants us to return to as a country?

That is the history of America and some people here seem to have a terrible grasp of history. The real history, not the alternative kind.

Add yourself to the list.

In the real history of America, immigration policy was settled by the question: will accepting these immigrants benefit our nation?

It's true that we took plenty of unskilled immigrants, but that's because there was plenty of unskilled work that needed to be done. Working to construct the railroads was one huge project.

We never had some kind of open door policy, and it's not going to happen now. It would be unsustainable given our generous social services which are available for immigrants.

And your terrible analogy to the Jews was already debunked in the Atlantic article I posted. Not to mention, the safe zones that President Trump is working to establish in the Middle East will be a safe place for refugees to live.

jerseymom wrote:
You know the old adage, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Well, take a moment to read this book;

My Brother's Keeper: Christians Who Risked All to Protect Jewish Targets of the Nazi Holocaust
Rod Gragg

It gives a chilling account of what ordinary people did to save the lives of Jewish citizens - often at the risk of their own lives. The most alarming part is what happened just prior to the Holocaust - the government edicts, the laws that were passed by fiat, the "rounding" up of Jews (and anyone deemed subversive). The refusal of America to take in refugees is also explored.

Also, today would have been the 95th birthday of Fred Korematsu, the very timely Google honoree who fought against the Japanese internment camps of WWII.

We are better than this. We cannot forget.

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

Witnesses reported the gunmen were screaming Allahu Akbar! Both had a Quebecois accent.

From Gatesofvienna.net

As reported in tonight?s news feed, gunmen shot up a mosque in Quebec City, killing at least five people.

Early news stories gave a bare-bones account of the incident, followed by the Narrative describing ?Islamophobia? in Quebec, and a recent increase of Islamophobic incidents.

Then came reports from eyewitnesses who said that the gunmen had been shouting ?Allahu Akhbar? as they fired their weapons. That shot holes in the Narrative, too ? unless, of course, the shooters were white-supremacist neo-Nazis who were just pretending to be Muslims.

The following video sheds some light on what may actually have happened in Quebec City tonight. It?s taken from the Facebook page of the mosque that was attacked. In it you?ll hear the imam of the mosque discuss the enmity of former members of the congregation who were unhappy with the blasphemous ?moderation? of this mosque ? that is, the shot-up mosque was full of murtadeen, or apostates.

Tonight?s attack may well have been an execution of Islamic justice against murtadeen by Salafist zealots.

Many thanks to Sandra Solomon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

https://youtu.be/eAbpiNQyTUs

No Salafist zealots. Just a French-Canadian.

NY POST NEWS
University student identified as shooter in deadly mosque attack
By Yaron Steinbuch January 30, 2017 | 8:20am | Updated

A French-Canadian university student was identified Monday as the alleged shooter who killed six people and wounded 19 others as they prayed in a Quebec City mosque ? an assault the Canadian prime minister called a ?terrorist attack.?

The suspect, Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, was an anthropology and political science student at the University of Laval, the oldest French-language university in North America, a source told Reuters.

Bissonnette ? who was not previously known to police ? lived with his parents in a single-family home on Tracel Street in the Cap-Rouge district, where police conducted a search Monday.

Bissonnette?s father is listed in the sales deed as an investigator, the Montreal Gazette reported.

Authorities earlier Monday named two suspects, but a Canadian of Moroccan descent was later said to be a witness to the Sunday night bloodbath at the Centre Culturel Islamique de Qu?bec in the Ste-Foy.

More

drifterx wrote:
Especially since many of those European immigrants were dirt poor and social pariahs in their own countries of origin.

It's also true that the US banned some Jews from entering the country when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. Is that where Trump wants us to return to as a country?

That is the history of America and some people here seem to have a terrible grasp of history. The real history, not the alternative kind.

JCMan8 wrote:
And quite frankly I don't care if foreigners want to come here because they can improve their lot. That's a terrible standard. Most of the world would love to come here.

Trump is returning our immigration policy to what it historically was...

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
The statement which I correctly defended spoke to the difference between immigrants currently here. Surely, you are intelligent enough to have realized this.

My bad. When you wrote about "immigrants," I thought you were talking about foreigners whose best option to secure health, safety, and a future for themselves and their families is to leave their homes for the United States.

TheBigGuy wrote:
The surprise timing was perfect and it sent a clear message that the days of announcing timetables of strategic security initiatives to our enemies is over.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

Witnesses reported the gunmen were screaming Allahu Akbar! Both had a Quebecois accent.

From Gatesofvienna.net

As reported in tonight?s news feed, gunmen shot up a mosque in Quebec City, killing at least five people.

Early news stories gave a bare-bones account of the incident, followed by the Narrative describing ?Islamophobia? in Quebec, and a recent increase of Islamophobic incidents.

Then came reports from eyewitnesses who said that the gunmen had been shouting ?Allahu Akhbar? as they fired their weapons. That shot holes in the Narrative, too ? unless, of course, the shooters were white-supremacist neo-Nazis who were just pretending to be Muslims.

The following video sheds some light on what may actually have happened in Quebec City tonight. It?s taken from the Facebook page of the mosque that was attacked. In it you?ll hear the imam of the mosque discuss the enmity of former members of the congregation who were unhappy with the blasphemous ?moderation? of this mosque ? that is, the shot-up mosque was full of murtadeen, or apostates.

Tonight?s attack may well have been an execution of Islamic justice against murtadeen by Salafist zealots.

Many thanks to Sandra Solomon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

https://youtu.be/eAbpiNQyTUs

JCMan8 wrote:
The statement which I correctly defended spoke to the difference between immigrants currently here. Surely, you are intelligent enough to have realized this.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
So that was kind of an odd ramble.

You recently came to the defense of a person who incorrectly stated that, ?People are not opposed to legal immigration.? However, we know that there are Americans who are indeed opposed to certain forms of legal immigration, so his statement is untrue and indefensible.

Now today, you're following up by saying that many Americans support Mr. Trump?s sudden immigration ban. Okay fine, but are you willing to believe they all changed their minds over the weekend, just to keep up with the law? If not, perhaps many Americans were already opposed to legal immigration from the affected countries.

Wouldn't that be shocking?

JCMan8 wrote:
So that was kind of an odd ramble.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
You might want to brush up on what "legal" means.

Trump changed the immigration laws. In stark contrast to the picture painted by a liberal, deceitful mass media, many Americans are fully behind President Trump's changes to the immigration laws.

It is improbable to the point of impossibility that all Americans who support Mr. Trump?s immigration ban held welcoming attitudes toward legal immigration from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia only one day earlier.

You brush up.

And if you were genuinely sensitive to "deceit," you wouldn't be such a cheerleader for the President.