I'm sorry, you consider what he linked as him supporting his arguments? Did you even read through the link he provided? A few paragraphs down from what he quoted, the discussion turns to why some Jews in Congress voted against going to war in Iraq (from what he linked above): The Jewish legislators who voted against Bush's war plans may have said to themselves: "If all of the Jews in Congress vote in favor of Bush's war plans, and ultimately, this Gulf war turns into a disaster, the political backlash could be fatal. It could mean an end to our political careers and Zionist influence upon Congress. Therefore, I think it is in my own and Israel's best interests if a good portion of we Jewish legislators vote against Bush's war plans." And yet, there may even be a better explanation as to why the Jewish vote in Congress was split-it may have been planned that way. As the now-defunct The Spotlight noted: "legislative votes are frequently planned well in advance by both Republicans and the Democrats. This permits legislators with public relations problems to cast 'politically correct' votes, while at the same time being assured the outcome of the balloting will be exactly expected as expected."12 The Wall Street Journal noted that there was quiet relief among Jewish groups when it became known that "the vote showed no solid Jewish bloc in favor of a war so relevant to Israel."13 One Jewish lawmaker commented that it wasn't such a bad idea that the Jewish vote in Congress was split.14 By consciously splitting the Jewish vote, two objectives could be obtained. Not only could the war resolution get passed. But just as importantly, public opinion would remain largely unaware of the linkage between the pro-war resolution, the interests of Israel, and Zionist influence upon Congress. With a split in the Jewish vote in Congress, Zionist politicos could surreptitiously "discredit" the claims of the critics that Zionist interests wield too much influence upon Congress. In this case, American Zionists faced a severe dilemma. On the one hand, they had to somehow satisfy their most fervent wish of getting America to destroy Iraq's military might. Yet, on the other hand, if the American people ever became aware of the fact that an alien Zionist element was working to have American soldiers sent to die for the state of Israel, the result could be politically fatal. And if that level of drivel was not enough, the author decided to up the ante on the conspiracy theories.. As we shall soon see, once again, it is the Jewish-Zionist power elite and their Gentile allies that are a major driving force behind this push for war with Iraq. Although the evidence in support of this claim in abundant, it is rarely discussed in the mainstream US media-a tribute to the enormous power of the Jewish-Zionist power elite and their ability to censor the news. In fact, political pundits that work for Jewish-owned, pro-Zionist newspapers attempt to mislead the people by prodding them to believe that the Jewish-Zionist power elite is not a driving force behind US war plans against Iraq. Ya, I'll take him to task for what you claim is his supporting his argument. Those links are from the site you linked as evidence to support your claims in this thread. And a word of caution. The ice you are on on this site is so thin that your warm spit could cause it to melt. I would dial down the insults if I was you..
Jewish Americans have their concerns, but they are far more liberal than Israelis. Also politicians are free to ignore this minority, I don't see what's so sinister about it. Everyone lobbies for their interests. Also fuck Saddam, I'm glad he's dead.
You seize on the split Jewish vote as discrediting Jewish lobbying. That's ironic since the theory is they split the vote after lobbying when the motion was sure to pass, an entirely plausible theory. You then ignore the lobbying, and dismiss an explanation of the split vote as "drivel". Why wouldn't they split it? It passed and people like you can point to the split and ignore the lobbying. How about Tom "dead babies" Lantos? Justify that one.
Or we can just rely on the facts... An analysis of Gallup Poll data collected since the beginning of 2005 finds that among the major religious groups in the United States, Jewish Americans are the most strongly opposed to the Iraq war. Catholics and Protestants are more or less divided in their views on the war, while Mormons are the most likely to favor it. Those with no religious affiliation also oppose the war, but not to the same extent that Jewish people do. The greater opposition to the war is not simply a result of high Democratic identification among U.S. Jews, as Jews of all political persuasions are more likely to oppose the war than non-Jews who share the same political leanings. [...] Jewish people oppose the Iraq war by a better than 3-to-1 margin, 77% to 21%. Americans without a religious preference are twice as likely to oppose (66%) as to support (33%) the war. Catholics are somewhat more likely to oppose (53%) than to support the war (46%). On the other hand, Mormons and Protestants show more support than opposition to the war. Mormons are strongly in favor, as just 27% term the war "a mistake." Overall, Protestants are divided, with 48% opposed and 49% in favor. But black Protestants and non-black Protestants diverge in their views. Black Protestants -- who are overwhelmingly Democratic -- show strong opposition to the war, while among non-black Protestants, support for the Iraq war surpasses the majority level (55% say the war was not a mistake). As has been well-established, war support is strongly influenced by one's political leanings -- Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the war while Republicans favor it by a similarly wide margin. One might assume that the greater war opposition among Jews is attributable to the group being overwhelmingly Democratic. In this sample, 52% of Jewish people identify as Democrats, and another 20% are independents who say they lean to the Democratic Party. But a closer analysis of the data show that Jewish war opposition goes beyond their basic political leanings. Jewish people are more likely to oppose the war than non-Jews of the same political persuasion. For example, 89% of Jewish Democrats oppose the Iraq war, compared with 78% of all non-Jewish Democrats. As for your Zionist conspiracy claims.. The role of pro-Israel groups in forming U.S. policy toward Iraq was controversial even before the invasion in March 2003. Some critics have suggested that influential Jewish advisers and groups pushed the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq in order to help Israel. The Bush administration and leaders of the Jewish community have strongly rejected those suggestions. These data show that the average American Jew -- even those who are Republicans and may support the Bush administration on other matters -- opposes the war. Wow the tin foil hat is strong in you, isn't it? And what does Tom Lantos have to do with this discussion, exactly?
Bells , you misread me entirely. I was amused that he was criticising YOU for supporting your arguments - a sign of the topst-turvy, alternative fact world our hot-tempered friend seems to live in. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (But as it happens, on this Iraq invasion thing, I have read Walt and Mearsheimer's excellent book on the Israel Lobby. As you correctly point out, our friend is deliberately distorting the idea of the Israel Lobby to turn it into what these authors were at pains to avoid, namely an antisemitic conspiracy theory.)
So I was talking about Jewish lobbying causing the war, and now you're posting data on what American Jews at large say about the war after it happened. Not really hitting the target there. Tom Lantos is relevant, unlike your posts.
The Bush administration caused the war, which was arguably justified, however incompetently pursued. The notion that Jews control world events is a typical antisemitic trope.
More on topic. The core argument against the ban is that it discriminates based on religion. Well here's a religion related immigration policy. H.R.4681 of the 106th Congress, which was passed as Public Law No. 106-378 on October 27, 2000. To provide for the adjustment of status of certain Syrian nationals The Congress finds as follows: (1) President Bush and President Clinton successively conducted successful negotiations with the Government of Syria to bring about the release of members of the Syrian Jewish population and their immigration to the United States. (2) In order to accommodate the Syrian Government, the United States was required to admit these aliens by first granting them temporary nonimmigrant visas and subsequently granting them asylum, rather than admitting them as refugees (as is ordinarily done when the United States grants refuge to members of a persecuted alien minority group). (3) The asylee status of these aliens has resulted in a long and unnecessary delay in their adjustment to lawful permanent resident status that would not have been encountered had they been admitted as refugees. (4) This delay has impaired these aliens’ ability to work in their chosen professions, travel freely, and apply for naturalization. (5) The Attorney General should act without further delay to grant lawful permanent resident status to these aliens in accordance with section 2. SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN SYRIAN NATIONALS. (a) Adjustment of Status.–Subject to subsection (c), the Attorney General shall adjust the status of an alien described in subsection (b) to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if the alien– (1) applies for adjustment of status under this section not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act or applied for adjustment of status under the Immigration and Nationality Act before the date of the enactment of this Act; (2) has been physically present in the United States for at least 1 year after being granted asylum; (3) is not firmly resettled in any foreign country; and (4) is admissible as an immigrant under the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time of examination for adjustment of such alien. [[Page 114 STAT. 1443]] (b) <<NOTE: Applicability.>> Aliens Eligible for Adjustment of Status.–The benefits provided by subsection (a) shall apply to any alien– (1) who– (A) is a Jewish national of Syria; (B) arrived in the United States after December 31, 1991, after being permitted by the Syrian Government to depart from Syria; and (C) is physically present in the United States at the time of filing the application described in subsection (a)(1); or (2) who is the spouse, child, or unmarried son or daughter of an alien described in paragraph (1).
Well you seem to be flip flopping about at present. Previously you claimed they lobbied for the war. Now you are claiming they caused the war. Which is it? You linked a website (*chortle*) that goes on about the whole Zionist conspiracy and how all the Jews were in on it and how they truly supported the war in Iraq, but the actual facts prove you wrong (again!) and then you complain that I am discussing what you said and linked because you have chosen to try and change the subject once more. This thread is really about Trump's Muslim ban and you entered it because you seem to have some sort of bizarre desire to talk about Zionists and the Iraq war and now, Tom Lantos. You also seem to be confusing the first and second Iraq war. You do realise that they are two distinct conflicts, yes? I am trying to stick to the topic. You are saying 'something something' about Tom Lantos lobbying for the first Iraq war.. Which has what to do with Trump's Muslim ban? Again with the Jewish thing? What does the US Government trying to secure passage for some Jews in Syria in 2000 have to do with Trump's Muslim ban? Are you even aware of the aggression towards Jews in Syria and elsewhere that led to a literal exodus from Aleppo and Damascus to various countries around the world, from the US, some South American countries, the UK? And again, this is wildly off topic.
He did rule on whether it was LIKELY legal. One of the criterions for preserving the stay was a determination that the appeal was likely to succeed. In other words, if the order was certainly legal, the court would be obligated to vacate the stay since it would not be overturned. The order is NOT certainly legal, therefore a stay was denied - since the case against the EO has a good chance of succeeding.
My argument against the ban is that it is stupid, none of the countries on that list have produced even one deadly terrorist on US soil. The ban is clearly a cop-out for trump to claim he did as he promised while doing nothing productive at all. also... wait... oh no this goy Dave clearly knows too much! Call the elders! He must be shlumed. He must not know of are shlemes with trump though his convert daughter!
I was under the impression that the first judge in one of the case (as there are multiple cases I hope I don't mix them up or together) ruled that the plaintiff had enough evidence to show that disruptions were caused (stuff ups with some persons return to US from the 7) and they suffered losses (dubious as to the extent) Again the judgement addressed the workings of the Order not the legality of the Order The 3 judges who heard POTUS appeal agreed with the first judge that disruptions were caused (stuffed up implementation) and they suffered losses (dubious as to the extent) Again the 3 judgements addressed the judgement of the first judge to be correct in that the workings of the Order was a shambles and the plaintiff suffered losses (dubious) but never came close to judging the legality of the Order (which by now was a step back removed and seems to have been forgotten) Summary POTUS makes a EO which he can as long as is legal which does not preclude it being poorly implemented which it was Court 1 judge - EO was poorly implemented Appeals court 3 judges - we agree with 1 judge EO was poorly implemented Looking ahead prediction Supreme Court You DoDos the issue is Is the EO legal? We find it is Why were you lot judging the workings of the EO? For he's a jolly good fellow For he's a jolly good fellow For he's a jolly good felloooow And so say all of us Not sure about the last bit but you never know Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is not supported, at all. The order is more more illegal than the current workings of the order, now that permanent residents aren't being treated like aliens without any connection to the United States. But that's not in the order, that's a whim of the administration. Some recent coverage: https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-and-how-not-read-todays-9th-circuit-opinion “Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President—a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders—in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.” Trump referred to this, pointing out what I have with his own spin https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830042498806460417 “LAWFARE: "Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this (the) statute." A disgraceful decision!” h/t: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...courts-travel-ban-ruling-plots-next-move.html The author points out that DJT seems to have missed the point. His fault, I say, for using more than 140 characters to make his point. https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/830102632299712512 “#NotesFromUnderTrump, Day 22: So thanks, Mr. President, for endorsing my work. You've found the only sentence in it congenial to your views.” https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/830046040644526081 “You decide whether the POTUS is quoting me in context. Here's the article. For the record, I support the decision: https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-and-how-not-read-todays-9th-circuit-opinion …” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-confronts-problem-of-no-evidence-for-claims/ “In short, the court found the administration essentially unbelievable, as have many of Trump’s critics.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/the-ninth-circuit-rejects-trumpism “The Trump Administration had made one more specific claim of irreparable harm to the “separation of powers,” by which it appeared to mean that harm would be done to the President’s power. The judges seemed puzzled by this, since “that injury is not ‘irreparable’ ”: the President would be able to act if he won in court. Perhaps, in the Administration’s thinking, the risk was not really to the Presidency as a constitutional office but to the idea that this President could do whatever he wanted. The irreparable harm would be done to his ability to boast. The judges may not have realized that, for Donald Trump, that counts as an emergency. Or maybe they understood it all too well.” What WILL Trump do next? Hard to predict because, as in economics, modeling the WH Administration as a fact-based, rational decision maker has not been very successful. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-9th-circuit-ruling-next-steps-234902 “After the order let to travel disruption, delays and detentions for hundreds of green card holders, the White House sought to resolve that problem through a series of moves that did not involve Trump modifying his order. The latest move on that front was a memo from White House counsel Don McGahn purporting to offer "authoritative guidance" that Trump's directive does not appeal to green-card holders. The White House said that should eliminate all doubt about the order impacting permanent U.S. residents, but the appeals court said in its ruling Thursday that McGahn's statement was entitled to no legal weight. “There’s no clean way out of this at this point,” [University of Texas law professor Steve] Vladeck said.”
And that rules out definately for ever and ever the intelligence that POTUS had been told at before breakfast that an attack was on its way which lead to POTUS to act fast to head it off Other option Intelligence informs POTUS before breakfast that an attack was on its way Nah never had one from those 7 so it never gonna happen
OK you're starting to mix stuff up here. First Trump issued the Executive Order with the travel bans. Next a Washington judge (Robart) issued a restraining order against the EO, preventing its enforcement, in response to several states demanding a temporary restraining order on the grounds that the EO was illegal. In his decision he stated the EO would likely be found to be illegal; specifically, the states questioning the legality of the EO have "established at least serious questions going to the merits of their claims and that the balance of equities tips sharply in their favor." That means Robart believes the challenge to the legality of the EO will succeed, and thus has prevented enforcement of the EO until the question of legality is settled. The administration appealed this restraining order to the Ninth Circuit Court, asking for an emergency stay. To get it, the administration had to show that it had a likelihood of success on the merits of the case, that the US would suffer irreparable harm if it didn’t get the stay, and that the stay would be in the public interest. The Ninth Circuit Court said (effectively) "no, Robart was right." Robart's judgment addressed the legality of the order and stated that it would likely be found illegal. The Ninth Circuit Court agreed with his decision.
Great, but they aren't denying immigration on the basis of religion, so those people can't claim we are harming them.
That is not my understanding Of course not sitting in the courts and relying on news outlets I could be well off I thought all of the judgements related to the implementation effects NOT the LEGALITY Think I will give my two neurones a rest from this thread and wait for the book or the movie
Oh by all means Trump can simply state that he has special intelligence that some citizens from those 7 nations is coming over in the next 90 days to attack us.
for the record, my post applied strictly and only to the example you utilised in your post, which is why i only quoted just that - just your military example it was not correct that was it .
