Sally Yates, an Obama hack, was serving as the Acting Attorney General because the Senate is dragging its feet in the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the new AG. Some have questioned why Trump would leave an Obama hack in the position while he awaited his own nominee and that is a valid argument but the reality is Trump should not have had to have an acting anybody. The Senate should have approved Sessions the day Trump took office.
Instead, President Trump had to wait and after he issued his now famous Executive Order on immigration and refugees his acting AG, Yates, publicly stated she opposed the EO and that the DOJ would not enforce it.
Yes, she was insubordinate. She refused to follow the LEGAL order of the president, the very person from whom she gets her authority.
If Yates had some legal issue with it or wanted to discuss any possible Constitutional concerns then that would be a different issue but she did not take that route. As a liberal Obama crony she did not want to enforce it. How could she when her former boss was out praising protesters and falsely claiming this was a ban on religion?
President Trump was well within his legal right to issue the EO and he was on sound legal footing in doing so:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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. Cornell Law
Yates had two professional choices, follow the order or resign. She chose an unprofessional and blatantly political option instead, to disobey her boss. She chose to be insubordinate.
There are plenty of misguided people out protesting and screaming about this order (and people like B. Hussein Obama are praising them) but the order is legal. There is nothing that says people have to like the order but it is legal nonetheless (not to mention none of you complained when Obama did the same thing).
Plenty of judges are morally opposed to abortion but they uphold challenges to it every day. There are people who are opposed to the ACA (aka Obamacare) but they were forced to buy insurance or pay a tax. None of them protested the IRS or shut down major cities because they were upset about a law they did not like (and that is unconstitutional despite what the tyrants in black robes say).
So people if you don’t like the EO that is your business but please stop claiming it is a religious ban, or a ban on Muslims or that it is unconstitutional because none of that is true.
I know it is tough for you to live in a world where a person elected to office does exactly what he said he was going to do and I know it hurts even more when you hate that guy and did not vote for him but your dislike and hatred do not trump (see what I did there) the facts and the facts are clear.
He is well within his legal authority in what he is doing.
And Sally Yates, your inability to see this and your partisan attitude and blindness earned you the honor of hearing Donald Trump’s catch phrase:
One gone from the swamp….
Never surrender, never submit.
I listened yesterday as Dianne Feinstein, a very old senator from California (as in should be out to pasture), questioned Senator Sessions as he goes through the process to be the next Attorney General. She was a typical liberal and asked about things that dealt with abortion and gay marriage. She was concerned that Sessions still considers Roe v Wade to be the worst decision the SCOTUS ever made (I agree with him that it was unconstitutional and should have been a 10th Amendment issue). Sessions was candid and said it was the law and he would enforce it but that he personally thinks it was wrongly decided. I think the same is true about gay marriage. Marriage of any kind is not in the Constitution so it is not the business of the federal government.
It was obvious to me that Feinstein is biased and does not want Sessions to be confirmed. That is obvious with regard to most Democrats who questioned him. They have decided to run a racist allegation smear and are sticking to it despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. It is how they do things in DC. It matters not that these folks work together and that they have good relationships. As soon as politics are in play they abuse each other with lies. It is a wink, wink situation where they say, nothing personal dude but I have to play up to the base so I look good.
It started with Feinstein’s opening remarks where she expressed concerns (allegedly told to her by victim groups) about Sessions’ ability to be the AG for all people and to enforce all the laws, particularly the ones with which he disagrees.
I have no doubt Sessions will do just that BUT, I want to know where Feinstein was with regard to former AG Eric Holder. Feinstein supported Holder even though he has a history as a radical. While in office Holder refused to defend laws with which he disagreed. He refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act stating gay rights were the last civil rights. Did Feinstein have a chat with Holder about supporting the law EVEN THOSE WITH WHICH HE DISAGREES?
In 2011, the attorney general said he won’t defend Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which rules that federal interpretation of “marriage” applies only to heterosexual couples. Last year, Holder told ABC News, “From my perspective, [gay marriage] is really the latest civil-rights issue.” So when six state attorneys general said they would not defend laws that ban gay marriage, Holder did not step in. Instead, Holder said they didn’t have to defend the laws if they believed they were unconstitutional. ABC News
Is it OK for AG Sessions to ignore laws or state AGs who ignore laws that they consider unconstitutional? If a state AG decided that Obamacare or gay marriage or abortion were unconstitutional and refused to enforce or defend the laws guiding them would Feinstein be OK with that? She certainly had no issue with Holder…
Feinstein also expressed concern that Sessions had a history of racism (not proven and contrary to evidence) and she was concerned that people of color (and other protected minority groups) would not get a fair shake under an AG Sessions. Where was Feinstein when Holder refused to prosecute the Black Panthers who were recorded intimidating white voters? She was nowhere to be found when Holder claimed that the focus on the Black Panther Case demeans “my people.”
Did Feinstein call Holder in to let him know it was racist to take that attitude and that all Americans are his people?
It is obvious that the Democrats have a hard on for Sessions (actually they hate Trump and want to wound him this way). That is all well and good BUT a real leader, a principled person in the Senate, would evaluate a person based on skill and career. The reality is the Democrats (hell, most politicians) are immoral and cowardly. They do not care what is good for the country or what is right. They care about how they can get and keep power and how they can control each and every one of us.
Feinstein is a moron and a political hack. She is out for blood because her besty Hillary Clinton got her rear end whipped by Donald Trump.
I want adults with ethical principles and of good moral character to sit in the senate and that is why Feinstein should be put out to pasture.
She is a disgrace to herself and the body in which she sits.
As an aside, Al Franken is as partisan and cowardly as Feinstein.
Democrats ram stuff through when they are in charge and expect their nominees to be accepted. When they are the minority they expect bipartisanship and the ability to oppose nominees because they know what is best for America.
They are a ruthless bunch and must be handled with brutal force. Get them down and keep them down.
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 2, 2008 Political
General Wesley Clark, a man who has had his nose up the Clinton’s rear ends (he must be hoping for the SECDEF job) has made a completely asinine statement with regard to John McCain and Hilary Clinton. According to Clark, Clinton is better qualified to be the Commander in Chief by virtue of her jet setting around the world while First Lady than is McCain who actually served for several decades.
In the national security business, the question is, do you have â€” when you have served in uniform, do you really have the relevant experience for making the decisions at the top that have to be made? Everybody admires John McCain’s service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There’s no issue there. He’s a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot â€” and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam â€” that doesnâ€™t prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn’t give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.
If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she’s the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security. NRO
Now, according to Clark, the issue is having relevant experience to make the decisions at the top that have to be made. Clark believes that McCain had the wrong kind of military experience so he would not be good s the CINC. Hillary, on the other hand, would be wonderful because she has NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE. Instead, she gained her qualifications by visiting 80 countries while First Lady. General Clark was a military man and he believed that he had what it takes to be the CINC. That is why he ran for the presidency in the last election. However, using his criteria, every First Lady in modern history would be more qualified than Clark, McCain or any other military man simply because they jetted around to other countries. By this standard, Laura Bush is just as qualified as Hillary so we should ask her to run because she is evidently more qualified than McCain and a hell of a lot more pleasant than Clinton.
I wonder if this jackass ever thinks before he speaks. He was with that dipstick Captain at the Kos convention trying to intimidate a soldier who happened to attend while in uniform. The soldier was not participating in a rally or supporting a candidate and Clark was unaware of military regulation. Now he is saying that McCain’s military experience makes him less qualified than Hillary who has absolutely no military experience and has spent her life with a general loathing of the military. She treated the military working in her husband”s White House horribly and somehow Clark thinks this makes her more qualified than McCain.
I am not saying McCain would be the best president in the word or that he does not have flaws. I am sure there are issues the other candidates might have a better grasp of than he but one thing is absolutely certain. John McCain has more experience than both of the others put together and he has far more experience needed to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. John McCain has forgotten more about the military than these two will ever know so if they want to pick on him they should try something that actually makes sense.
Having Wesley Clark make stupid statements about the right kind of military service is not helpful and should Hillary miraculously win and decide that Clark will be the SECDEF we would have to question any statement he made because he has already proven he is incompetent and, like the Clinton’s, will say anything to get a win.
Wesley Clark is a moron who has no clue as to what it takes to lead as demonstrated by his ridiculous statements regarding McCain and Clinton.