Sally Yates, American hero. There will be more.

Uncategorized 3 Minutes

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

In the wars to protect the American dream of a righteous, compassionate nation, there have been heroes and there have been villains.

Today we have a hero:

Chicago Tribune: 1/31/2017: President Donald Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates Monday night, after Yates ordered Justice Department lawyers Monday not to defend his immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world.

In a press release, the White House said Yates had “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.”

Sally Yates knew what would happen to her for her defiance of a leader who preached fear, a leader who would have us crouching behind a great wall, while innocent people of a religion are refused entry.

Sally Yates rose one brave voice of protest, a small voice in the scheme of things, but an important voice.

There will be more.

She follows in the tradition of our founders who defied the king and built America. There were heroes then.

How many of us today would risk our jobs to defend our Constitution and the people and the religions it was designed to protect?

How many of us will make excuses to ignore the ideals and ideas that made America special?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

“. . . a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . “

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me”

Sally Yates is one who stepped forward. There were many more, and there will be many more, until cruelty and cowardice once again have been defeated by American compassion and courage.

Godspeed Sally Yates. May your name long be celebrated.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

ECONOMICS LAWS

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Published by Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

MBA Northwestern, business turnaround expert, economist

Published

9 thoughts on “Sally Yates, American hero. There will be more.”

  1. See: Sally Yates beautiful refusal to join bigotry

    On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions.

    As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

    My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before
    they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a
    proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted.

    Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

    Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader.

    My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts.

    In addition, 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. 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.

    Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    President Trump’s immigration order is a disgrace. But not for the reasons you think.
    By: Damon Linker

    This executive order is abhorrent because the United States does not face a serious threat from terrorists originating in the seven singled-out countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan.

    How do we know that? Because there have thus far been no fatal terrorist attacks committed by people from those countries. None. Not one.

    Which means that the executive order isn’t justified. At all. Not because such an order is inherently unacceptable, but because it isn’t necessary under the present circumstances.

    If the United States faced a sufficiently elevated threat of terrorist attacks committed by nationals originating from these countries, the executive order might well be justified, and I might well support it.

    But it doesn’t, and I don’t.

    In certain respects, the order transgresses bedrock American principles that should be considered inviolable, especially the original (now partially walked-back) inclusion in the ban of foreign nationals in possession of green cards.

    These are lawful permanent residents of the United States, not outsiders we may feel the need to exclude in a time of extreme national threat.

    They have already endured and come through an arduous, time-consuming vetting process run by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (One might even describe it as “extreme vetting.”)

    So, why insist on originally including lawful permanent residents in the ban (as senior White House staffers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller apparently went out of their way to do)?

    Treating Muslim Americans as second-class citizens would indisputably be a vicious betrayal of the nation’s highest ideals and aspirations — a betrayal that the threat posed by radical Islam does not even remotely justify.

    That’s why the Trump administration’s executive order is an outrage, and it cannot be allowed to stand.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    In one of several recent clashes with President Donald Trump’s administration, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly refused attempts by the White House to name Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach as Kelly’s deputy, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday night.

    Per the Journal:

    Mr. Kelly hasn’t been able to name the deputy he wants at the agency, people familiar with the matter said, and he fought off attempts by the White House to put Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state known as a hard-liner on immigration, into the position.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The law clearly was anti-Muslim. It certainly was not anti-terrorist, for not one terror act against America, has been committed by a resident of those five nations.

      Terror acts by Muslim were committed by people from other nations, that were not punished.

      Thus, Trump’s act was in violation of the 1st Amendment which yes, does apply to immigrants.

      See this: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/yates-in-2015-on-saying-no-an-unlawful-order-from-the-president-866420803503?cid=eml_mra_20170131

      That said, please don’t defend Trump because he “just was trying to protect America.,” That sort of naivete wouldn’t fool anyone.

      Trump is an un-American bigot, and soon you will see even his family turn against him.

      Like

      Reply

  3. Yates refused to comply with a lawful E.O

    Decisive action is fine. Precipitous action is not. I support his policy but not the timing of it.

    Major tactical error on Trump’s part was taking actions sure to be challenged in court before he had his appointees confirmed and in place. How could he not suspect that people like Yates, who is every but as much his opponent as Loretta Lynch, would oppose him?

    Wash Post – Acting Attorney General declares Justice Department won’t defend Trump’s immigration order:

    Wonder if Acting Atty. Gen. Sally Yates ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952?

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if, at some point during his Presidential campaign Donald Trump asked, Oh, by the way has anyone in Washington DC ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952? it has been a law for almost 65 years. Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington DC do NOT have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.

    After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely, criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims). The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being Un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our illustrious President called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.

    As Gomer Pyle would say, “Well, Surprise, Surprise!” It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.

    Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, may suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate.”

    And who do you suppose last utilized this process? Why it was Democrat President Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States.

    But he actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

    So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and the Oba Administration?

    The law has existed since 1952. enacted by a Democratically controlled Congress and signed into law by President Harry Truman (D): Title 8 US Code: § 1182 – Inadmissible Aliens: The authority invoked to issue this order is INA 212(f), codified at 8 USC 1182(f),

    ‘(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. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.’

    Yates refused to comply with a lawful E.O. for political reasons and was prompty sacked.

    Like

    Reply

    1. 1. No act of Congress can overturn the Constitution.
      2. If this is appealed to the Supreme Court, they will decide whether it is Constitutional
      3. Your strong defense indicates you approve of Trump’s action, not only from a legal sense but from moral and practical senses. True?

      Like

      Reply

  5. Whenever I see Democrat Party repeated ad infinitum, I smell Breitbart or Alex Jones. The tragedy is that many folk accept them as MSM.

    Like

    Reply

  6. Several people have contacted me with comments that fall into the “Hillary was worse” and “Obama was worse” all-purpose conservative excuse-for-evil.

    You will find that conservatives who still admire Trump don’t even bother to justify his actions, but rather come back with one version of the “Hillary was worse” or “Obama was worse” as though that is a justification for everything.

    Like all people in power, Hillary and Obama did many bad things, and in fact this blog repeatedly has called them out, especially Obama.

    But why conservatives believe that justifies Trump’s craziness is something I can’t fathom. It’s the “I killed my wife but my neighbor beat his wife, so I should not be punished” defense.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment