White House Press Secretary: Acting AG “Relieved” After Refusing to Uphold Travel Order

YOU’RE FIRED

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jan. 30, 2017) — On Monday evening, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer tweeted, and mainstream media subsequently reported, that Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was “relieved” of her duties after refusing to uphold President Donald Trump’s executive order barring new arrivals from seven Middle-Eastern countries and a 120-day ban on all incoming refugees.

In events which may have coincided, Yahoo! News reported on its front page that Yates stated publicly that she could not uphold the order based on her stated belief that it violated the law.

Yates had additionally instructed her staff not to abide by the order.

Yahoo’s lead story is now updated to reflect Yates’s dismissal.

In 2011, Obama delayed the processing of Iraqi refugees after two men admitted to the U.S. were suspected of terrorist activity in their home country.

In August, Yates had announced that the government would not renew contracts with private prison operators at the federal level.

Trump named an Obama appointee, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana Boente, to serve as Acting Attorney General until his own AG is confirmed.  Several weeks before his inauguration, Trump nominated former U.S. attorney, Alabama Attorney General, and current Alabama U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions for U.S. attorney general.

While hearings have taken place in the U.S. Senate in accordance with the “advice and consent” provision of the U.S. Constitution, Sessions has not yet been confirmed.

On Monday morning, former White House occupant Barack Hussein Obama broke his silence since leaving the White House on January 20 to encourage, through a spokesman, protesters around the country to continue to protest Trump’s executive order, Which he pledged to implement during the presidential campaign in an attempt to prevent terrorist activity on U.S. soil.

Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis stated that Obama believes the executive order violates “American values.”  The statement additionally indicated that Obama views the order as discriminating against people of certain faiths.

It is not customary for a former president to criticize a current president, particularly during his first weeks in office.

Some in the mainstream media have characterized the order as a “Muslim ban,” a characterization the White House refutes.

Other media have termed it a “travel ban.”

As the executive order took effect over the weekend and travelers arrived from the targeted countries, chaos erupted at several airports around the country, after which ACLU attorneys rushed to step in on behalf of the wood-be entrants.  On Saturday evening, a federal judge placed a temporary stay on the executive order which maintained those arriving from the seven countries in detention rather than admitted to the country or deported.

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides latitude to the president to make decisions as to specific groups of people to be denied admission to the United States based on national security concerns.

Under the more permissive Obama regime, a number of terrorist attacks which killed and Injured Americans Took Pl. in Orlando, FL; San Bernardino, CA; Chattanooga, TN; Boston, MA, and Fort Hood, TX.

One Response to "White House Press Secretary: Acting AG “Relieved” After Refusing to Uphold Travel Order"

  1. No More Muslim Brotherhood   Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 11:35 PM

    New subscriber. Excellent articles. Thought it useful to record here, “In 1952’s Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel noncitizens who were former Communists. “In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit,” Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in his concurrence. “One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court.”

    Clearly, this could apply to any undesirable of any immigration status, so it also applies to Islamic terrorists, AND their sympathizers. I am not sure how the laws apply to citizens, but stripping one of citizenship must be somewhere in there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.