Monday, January 30, 2017

The Trump "Muslim Ban" is Fake News!


Nigel Farage reverses and now backs Trump's racist Muslim ban
Published on Jan 29, 2017
You can view my blog here:
My other YouTube channels search for: "Still Incorrigible" & "Incorrigible Forever"
Theresa May feels heat over travel ban as Donald Trump stands firm
Tory MPs join Labour to criticise PM’s response as condemnation of US president’s policy spreads across the world
Peter Walker and Anushka Asthana
Monday 30 January 2017
Donald Trump has refused to step back from his ban on arrivals to the US from predominantly Muslim countries despite protests around America, chaos at US airports, global condemnation and a stand-off between his administration and its own legal system.
His policy, which immediately banned all citizens from seven countries in the Middle East and Africa from entering the US, left Theresa May facing a revolt among her own MPs who questioned her failure to condemn the policy.
The president’s measure is thought to have directly affected the travel plans of thousands of people inside and outside the country, and was challenged in the US courts within hours of being enforced.
Trump did not acknowledge the decision by a federal judge on Saturday night to partially block the executive order and a senior White House official said: “All stopped visas will remain stopped. All halted admissions will remain halted. All restricted travel will remain prohibited.”
As global condemnation of the ban spread, British Conservative figures joined the Labour party in questioning Theresa May’s decision to push ahead with a state visit that would see Trump courted by the UK government and royalty.
The backlash against May’s failure to condemn the move gathered pace amid fears that British citizens holding dual nationality could be affected. The government said they had been assured by the US that those citizens would not be affected by the ban as long as they weren’t travelling from one of the seven countries involved.
Boris Johnson was still expected to face questions about the ban in the House of Commons on Monday. The foreign secretary, who used Twitter to call the policy “divisive”, will be pressed on why Britain took longer than others to receive assurances from the US and why May did not condemn the policy in the same way as other European leaders.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said she “regretted” Trump’s measure and described it as an unjustified “general suspicion against people of a certain origin of religion”. François Hollande, the French president, said Trump had opted for a “dead end response” to an “unstable and uncertain world”.
After May declined three times on Saturday to condemn the executive order during a press conference in Turkey, Downing Street released a statement overnight saying the government “does not agree” with this approach. On Sunday and under pressure, Downing Street said that May had convened a conference call with Johnson and Rudd to instruct them to speak to their equivalents in the State Department and Department of Homeland Security.
But MPs from the prime minister’s own party have gone further, opting for a markedly different tone in condemning the president, with some questioning her decision to cosy up to Trump in Washington with a joint press conference before the ban was announced this week.
Writing in the Guardian, Sarah Wollaston said photographs of Trump grasping May’s hand as they walked through the White House “smacked of the unwelcome infantilising of a strong female leader”.
The Totnes MP wrote: “A shameful curtain of prejudice and discrimination is drawing across the land of the free and, if we are truly in a special relationship, true friends should be frank in saying so.”
Wollaston said that while the state visit would be likely to go ahead, how it was done would provide an important “symbol”. She said Westminster Hall ought to be reserved for leaders who had made a lasting and positive difference to the world. “That does not include Mr Trump. No doubt there will be those who wish to fawn over him but that must not be from the steps of our nation’s greatest hall.”
Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, also said state visits were intended to “celebrate and entrench the friendships and shared values between their respective countries … A state visit from the current president of the United States could not possibly occur in the best traditions of the enterprise while a cruel and divisive policy which discriminates against citizens of the host nation is in place. I hope President Trump immediately reconsiders his Muslim ban.”
The impact of the ban on Britons was brought home as one Conservative MP, Nadhim Zahawi, who was born in Baghdad, said he feared he and his wife could no longer visit their twin sons, who are studying in the US.
Sir Mo Farah, who came to the UK as a child from Somalia, warned that what he called a policy “of ignorance and prejudice” could see him separated from his US-based family.
On the question of British citizens, Johnson spoke to Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, according to a source.
The foreign secretary – who took to Twitter to condemn Trump’s policy, saying it was wrong to stigmatise people on the base of nationality – faced pressure to make a statement to the Commons or face an urgent question from Labour and the SNP.
A statement released after Johnson’s call with Kushner and Bannon said: “The only dual national [British citizens] who might have extra checks are those coming from one of the seven countries themselves – for example a UK-Libya dual national coming from Libya to the US. The US has reaffirmed its strong commitment to the expeditious processing of all travellers from the United Kingdom.”
Trump travel ban: airport detainees released following court order
It was unclear what revisions of the ban had been passed from the White House to border officials to guarantee these assurances that Britons would not be affected.
A Labour source said: “Whatever happens, we will be demanding to know why the Canadian government was able to provide assurance to its nationals on Saturday evening that they would be unaffected by the ban, at the same time that No 10 was only just getting round to looking into [its] implications.”
Labour is also expected to ask whether May knew of Trump’s order during her talks with him on Friday. The US president signed it the same day, after she had left.
Jeremy Corbyn told the Guardian that Trump “should not be welcomed to Britain while he abuses our shared values … Theresa May would be failing the British people if she does not postpone the state visit and condemn Trump’s actions in the clearest terms. That’s what Britain expects and deserves.”
With Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, also calling for the state visit to be cancelled, a petition to downgrade Trump’s trip gained almost a million signatures by early Monday morning, meaning it will be considered for debate in parliament. Separately, a Facebook-organised call for people to protest outside Downing Street at the policy on Monday evening prompted more than 17,000 people to say they would attend.
However Downing Street said there were no plans to amend or call off Trump’s state visit, expected in the summer. Asked if there were any second thoughts, a spokesman said only: “We extended the invitation and it was accepted.”
Farron said: “Any visit by President Trump to Britain should be on hold until his disgraceful ban comes to an end. Otherwise Theresa May would be placing the Queen in an impossible position of welcoming a man who is banning British citizens purely on grounds of their faith.”
Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, said May should contact Trump directly to seek an end to the ban. “You’re the prime minister,” he tweeted. “Get on the phone to the president and tell him the ban cannot stand. And do it today.”
Suddenly, Muslims are America’s pariahs
Nesrine Malik
Heidi Allen, the Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire, told BBC1’s Sunday Politics that she wished May had spoken out on the issue during her visit to see Trump this week. “Given that she had built clearly an excellent relationship with President Trump and convinced him that Nato was the right thing to support, I felt she had the strength of relationship that she could have been firmer at the time,” Allen said.
The presidential order places a 90-day ban on travel to the US for those from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen, seemingly including those with dual nationality. Trump has also banned refugees from entering the country for 120 days and those seeking asylum from Syria have been banned indefinitely.
Nicola Sturgeon said May should make her intentions plain, adding that she would raise the issue with the prime minister at a Brexit-focused meeting of leaders from the devolved nations in Cardiff on Monday.
David Gauke, chief secretary to the Treasury, told BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show that the ban was “divisive” and it was “a particular concern” that UK nationals such as Zahawi could be caught up in it. Asked why it had taken May so long to respond, he said: “The prime minister is not a shoot-from-the-hip type of politician. She wants to see the evidence. She wants to understand precisely what the implications are.”
Speaking on the same programme, Zahawi, who came to the UK as a child, said he and his wife were worried they would not be able to travel to see their twin sons, who are studying at Princeton University, despite holding 10-year US visas. “For the first time in my life, last night, I felt discriminated against,” Zahawi said. “It’s demeaning. It’s sad.”
Reject the rhetoric: There is no Muslim ban!
You are being lied to
By Herman Cain ——  Bio and Archives 
January 30, 2017
Let’s start with what President Trump actually said about banning people from seven countries known to have identifiable ties to radical Islamic terrorists:
“To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.”
He reiterated that the country would resume issuing visas to all countries “once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.”
This is not the impression one would get from the ensuing demonstrations and media stories generated in a matter of days. As I wrote earlier, the media are doubling down on their attempts to create false and mass hysteria about anything and everything President Trump does, says or even insinuates.
The liberal media and Democrats totally overlook the part about illegal. They want people to believe it’s against a religion. No it’s not!
Here’s how Martha Raddatz posed a question to a Trump official on Sunday morning. “Why should Christians get preferential treatment entering this country?”
Earth to Martha and all liberals who think that way: No Christians have chopped of people’s heads and driven into defenseless tourist areas, or killed innocent people in a shopping center, or blown up people running in a marathon to raise money for someone in need!
That kind of leading question and rhetoric causes the gullible to morph into a state of fear and outrage against a new administration trying to protect us.
I can remember my grandmother sifting ground flour to make sure there are no lumps in the flour. Usually, there were some lumps.
The Trump administration is trying to make sure no illegal (radical Islamic terrorist) lumps get through the system. But that’s not the narrative you hear from the liberal media.
They have doubled down on irrational reporting and fear with the help of paid protesters. But it’s not going to work. As I said earlier, move on, snowflakes. The rest of America already has.
Most of us are rejecting the rhetoric.
Herman Cain’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at 
Federal judge halts Trump’s immigration order — but only for those already here
The Trump administration can’t deport the people it’s currently holding in airports.
Updated by Dara Lind and Andrew Prokop 
Jan 28, 2017
Federal Judge Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York has handed an early victory to the lawyers challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order barring immigrants and travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US.
Judge Donnelly announced during an emergency hearing Saturday night that she was granting a stay that would prevent the government from deporting immigrants currently detained in airports around the country. You can read the stay in full here.
Now, let’s be clear: The stay does not strike down the full executive order. It does not allow people to come to the US who are currently abroad. What it does is “preserve the status quo” for people who came to the US in the immediate aftermath of the executive order, after having been granted visas allowing them to legally come to the US (before the order was signed).
That means it prevents the hundreds of people detained at airports Friday and Saturday from being deported, while the court system susses out whether Trump’s executive order was in fact legal.
Donnelly ordered that the federal government was restrained nationwide from “in any manner or any means removing” people with previously approved refugee applications, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from the seven countries named in the executive order.
The judge seemed very skeptical of the Trump administration's defense
Several reporters and activists were tweeting from the hearing, and according to their accounts, Donnelly — who was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed to her judgeship in 2015 — seemed unimpressed by the government’s arguments against granting a stay.
It should be made clear that this is a temporary measure halting part of Trump’s order, rather than a judicial finding that the order is unconstitutional.
And again, the bulk of the sweeping immigration order remains in effect for people who aren’t already in transit to the US or on American soil.
The refugee admissions program won’t be approving new refugees for at least four months, and new Syrian refugee approvals are blocked indefinitely.
There has been confusion over the treatment of lawful permanent residents of the US (like green card holders) from those seven countries and preapproved refugees who are currently abroad. Early on, it appeared they did not have “permission” to come back to the US. On Sunday, the Department of Homeland Security said that the legal permanent residents in question would be readmitted to the country, subject to security checks.
The various other changes Trump made to immigration policy, such as cutting the yearly refugee target in half and favoring “religious minorities” for those spots, are also untouched.
We’re still in the very early stages here
The events that unfolded as reports of immigrants and traveler detentions spread on Saturday were remarkable. Thousands of protesters poured into international airports nationwide to express opposition to Trump’s orders and support for refugees.
“The folks who are there, the family members who are there, you can see the fear in their eyes,” says Sirine Shebaya, a civil rights attorney who traveled to Dulles Airport with other lawyers to try help refugees and travelers detained there. “‘Is my family member going to be let out?’ It’s just unbelievable the chaos this executive order has sown.”
Shebaya said that airport authorities weren’t allowing lawyers to go in to see the people being detained at Dulles, claiming that they weren’t yet on American soil. (Later Saturday, a second judge ruled that lawyers should have “access to all legal permanent residents” being detained at the airport.)
Throughout the day, condemnations of Trump’s order from Democrats rolled in — and many went to join airport protests themselves. Republican members of Congress, however, stayed mostly silent, except for a few idiosyncratic dissenters who criticized the move — showing they aren’t yet sure how the politics of this move will play out.

Overall, we’re still at the very early stages of this legal, political, and policy fight. Still, Judge Donnelly’s stay makes for a remarkable turnabout from how the situation looked throughout the day on Saturday, and hands the new president his first setback in the judicial system.