Trump already getting a trade war with Mexico going lol
trump Mexico must pay for wall.. Mexico FU we won't.. trump fine we'll tax your shit 20% ... end result for America if that plays out.. lotsa inflation and a wall that will do nothing..
mexico makes tons of cheap auto parts and stuff that go into cars which will ultimately lead to higher prices..
anywho next 4 years gonna be a hoot to watch
hot headed authoritarian just lashing out .. complexity of situation be damned..
trump Mexico must pay for wall.. Mexico FU we won't.. trump fine we'll tax your shit 20% ... end result for America if that plays out.. lotsa inflation and a wall that will do nothing..
mexico makes tons of cheap auto parts and stuff that go into cars which will ultimately lead to higher prices..
anywho next 4 years gonna be a hoot to watch
hot headed authoritarian just lashing out .. complexity of situation be damned..
[h=2]Here's one trump twitter statement that I'm guessing won't happen now.. audit the fed
-----------------/
Audit the Fed? Mnuchin doesn't sound like a fan[/h]By Matt Egan January 25, 2017 12:19PM EST
As a candidate, President Trump strongly supported auditing the Federal Reserve -- a move that many fear could subject the world's most powerful central bank to political interference.
But Steven Mnuchin, U.S. Treasury secretary nominee, doesn't sound like he believes auditing the Fed is necessary.
Senator Bill Nelson sent Mnuchin a written question asking the Trump nominee what he thinks about "politicizing decisions" made by the Fed and the "benefits of an independent central bank."
Mnuchin responded cautiously, but made no mention of the dire need to audit the Fed that Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul -- and Trump -- have voiced.
"As you know, the Federal Reserve is organized with sufficient independence to conduct monetary policy," Mnuchin wrote.
Trump's Treasury pick added, "I endorse the increased transparency we have seen from the Federal Reserve Board over recent years."
An audit would allow the General Accountability Office to review the Fed's decisions on raising and lowering interest rates -- a critical tool the Fed uses to encourage growth or keep the economy from overheating.
Compare Mnuchin's statements with pre-election comments made by Mnuchin's future boss. Last February, Trump said on Twitter that it's "so important to audit The Federal Reserve."
Trump even called out Cruz for missing a January vote on an "Audit the Fed" bill.
Related: Trump Treasury pick: 'I have been maligned'
Mnuchin's carefully-crafted answer should come as a relief to those who fear that auditing the Fed would be a terrible idea.
"When I saw the quote, I took a lot of comfort in it. There is someone in a key position who is trying to calm things down," said Jeffrey Shafer, who worked at the Federal Reserve for more than a decade.
Shafer said history shows that when central banks become subject to political pressure, they "serve the short-term interests of who's running for office instead of focusing on a stable economy."
He should know. Shafer served at the Fed in the 1970s during a time that the central bank was very slow to tackle skyrocketing inflation. Many later blamed political pressure from the Nixon White House on the Fed not to raise rates more rapidly.
Ironically, Trump has said he thinks today's Fed is actually too political.
During the first presidential debate in September, Trump said that under Janet Yellen the "Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton." Speaking on CNBC, Trump also said Yellen should be "ashamed of herself" for keeping rates artificially low.
Yellen has defended the Fed against these attacks. During the Fed's last pre-election meeting, Yellen vowed to "lead an institution that's not political" and insisted the central bank is "not politically compromised."
Related: Fix, don't kill, the Volcker Rule
Mnuchin's Fed comments are another sign that the former Goldman Sachs banker could serve as a moderate voice inside the Trump administration.
During his confirmation hearing, Mnuchin said he supports the Volcker Rule, the post-crisis rule that prevent banks big banks from making risky bets with their own money. Instead of killing the rule as GOP legislation would do, Mnuchin suggested reforming it.
Mnuchin also said he believes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog agency inspired by Elizabeth Warren, is worth keeping.
--CNNMoney's Patrick Gillespie, Heather Long and Paul R. La Monica contributed to this report.
January 25
NEW YORK
-----------------/
Audit the Fed? Mnuchin doesn't sound like a fan[/h]By Matt Egan January 25, 2017 12:19PM EST
As a candidate, President Trump strongly supported auditing the Federal Reserve -- a move that many fear could subject the world's most powerful central bank to political interference.
But Steven Mnuchin, U.S. Treasury secretary nominee, doesn't sound like he believes auditing the Fed is necessary.
Senator Bill Nelson sent Mnuchin a written question asking the Trump nominee what he thinks about "politicizing decisions" made by the Fed and the "benefits of an independent central bank."
"As you know, the Federal Reserve is organized with sufficient independence to conduct monetary policy," Mnuchin wrote.
Trump's Treasury pick added, "I endorse the increased transparency we have seen from the Federal Reserve Board over recent years."
An audit would allow the General Accountability Office to review the Fed's decisions on raising and lowering interest rates -- a critical tool the Fed uses to encourage growth or keep the economy from overheating.
Compare Mnuchin's statements with pre-election comments made by Mnuchin's future boss. Last February, Trump said on Twitter that it's "so important to audit The Federal Reserve."
Trump even called out Cruz for missing a January vote on an "Audit the Fed" bill.
Related: Trump Treasury pick: 'I have been maligned'
Mnuchin's carefully-crafted answer should come as a relief to those who fear that auditing the Fed would be a terrible idea.
"When I saw the quote, I took a lot of comfort in it. There is someone in a key position who is trying to calm things down," said Jeffrey Shafer, who worked at the Federal Reserve for more than a decade.
Shafer said history shows that when central banks become subject to political pressure, they "serve the short-term interests of who's running for office instead of focusing on a stable economy."
He should know. Shafer served at the Fed in the 1970s during a time that the central bank was very slow to tackle skyrocketing inflation. Many later blamed political pressure from the Nixon White House on the Fed not to raise rates more rapidly.
Ironically, Trump has said he thinks today's Fed is actually too political.
During the first presidential debate in September, Trump said that under Janet Yellen the "Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton." Speaking on CNBC, Trump also said Yellen should be "ashamed of herself" for keeping rates artificially low.
Yellen has defended the Fed against these attacks. During the Fed's last pre-election meeting, Yellen vowed to "lead an institution that's not political" and insisted the central bank is "not politically compromised."
Related: Fix, don't kill, the Volcker Rule
Mnuchin's Fed comments are another sign that the former Goldman Sachs banker could serve as a moderate voice inside the Trump administration.
During his confirmation hearing, Mnuchin said he supports the Volcker Rule, the post-crisis rule that prevent banks big banks from making risky bets with their own money. Instead of killing the rule as GOP legislation would do, Mnuchin suggested reforming it.
Mnuchin also said he believes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog agency inspired by Elizabeth Warren, is worth keeping.
--CNNMoney's Patrick Gillespie, Heather Long and Paul R. La Monica contributed to this report.
January 25
NEW YORK
Let the fun begin.. trumps policy gets two Iraqis detained that helped us during our invasion of their country..
---------
[h=1]2 Iraqis file lawsuit after being detained in NY due to travel ban[/h][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
[/COLOR]
Washington (CNN)Lawyers for two Iraqis who had been granted visas to enter the US have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and the US government after they were detained when they arrived in New York Friday.
The lawsuit could represent the first legal challenge to Trump's controversial executive order, which indefinitely suspends admissions for Syrian refugees and limits the flow of other refugees into the United States by instituting what the President has called "extreme vetting" of immigrants.
Trump's order also said Iraqi citizens, as well as people from six other Middle Eastern countries, cannot enter the US for 90 days, and suspends the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days until it is reinstated "only for nationals of countries for whom" members of Trump's Cabinet deem can be properly vetted.
According to court papers, both men legally were allowed to come into the US but were detained in accordance with Trump's move to ban travel from several Muslim-majority nations.
The lawyers for the two men called for a hearing because they maintain the detention of people with valid visas is illegal.
The two Iraqi men named as plaintiffs in the suit are Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkaleq Alshawi. The suit said Darweesh held a special immigrant visa, which he was granted the day of Trump's inauguration, after working with the US government in Iraq for 10 years following the beginning of the US war in Iraq.
The lawsuit said the US granted Alshawi a visa earlier this month to meet with his wife and son, whom the US already granted refugee status for their association with the US military.
Court papers said Customs and Border Protection authorities did not allow the lawyers to meet with the men and told them to try reaching Trump.
"When Mr. Darweesh's attorneys approached CBP requesting to speak with Mr. Darweesh, CBP indicated that they were not the ones to talk to about seeing their client. When the attorneys asked, 'Who is the person to talk to?' the CBP agents responded, 'Mr. President. Call Mr. Trump,'" the court papers read.
Lawyers for Iraqi refugees filed the suit in federal court arguing Darweesh and Alshawi were being unlawfully held "solely pursuant" to an executive order issued on January 27, 2017.
Arguing that their clients have "valid entry documents," they say the were blocked from exiting John F. Kennedy International Airport and detained.
"Because the executive order is unlawful as applied to petitioners, their continued detention based solely on the executive order violates their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights," the lawyers argue in court papers.
The lawsuit was earlier reported by The New York Times.
Immigration-rights groups, including the National Immigration Law Center. and the ACLU, are representing the Iraqi men. Lawyers for the Iraqis are aiming to file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of other refugees.
"Our courageous plaintiff and countless others risked their lives helping U.S. service members in Iraq. Trump's order puts those who have helped us in harm's way by denying them the safe harbor they have been promised in the United States," said Karen Tumlin, the legal director of the NILC.
Trump signs executive order to keep out 'radical Islamic terrorists'
---------
[h=1]2 Iraqis file lawsuit after being detained in NY due to travel ban[/h][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65098)]
Washington (CNN)Lawyers for two Iraqis who had been granted visas to enter the US have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and the US government after they were detained when they arrived in New York Friday.
The lawsuit could represent the first legal challenge to Trump's controversial executive order, which indefinitely suspends admissions for Syrian refugees and limits the flow of other refugees into the United States by instituting what the President has called "extreme vetting" of immigrants.
Trump's order also said Iraqi citizens, as well as people from six other Middle Eastern countries, cannot enter the US for 90 days, and suspends the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days until it is reinstated "only for nationals of countries for whom" members of Trump's Cabinet deem can be properly vetted.
According to court papers, both men legally were allowed to come into the US but were detained in accordance with Trump's move to ban travel from several Muslim-majority nations.
The lawyers for the two men called for a hearing because they maintain the detention of people with valid visas is illegal.
The two Iraqi men named as plaintiffs in the suit are Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkaleq Alshawi. The suit said Darweesh held a special immigrant visa, which he was granted the day of Trump's inauguration, after working with the US government in Iraq for 10 years following the beginning of the US war in Iraq.
The lawsuit said the US granted Alshawi a visa earlier this month to meet with his wife and son, whom the US already granted refugee status for their association with the US military.
Court papers said Customs and Border Protection authorities did not allow the lawyers to meet with the men and told them to try reaching Trump.
"When Mr. Darweesh's attorneys approached CBP requesting to speak with Mr. Darweesh, CBP indicated that they were not the ones to talk to about seeing their client. When the attorneys asked, 'Who is the person to talk to?' the CBP agents responded, 'Mr. President. Call Mr. Trump,'" the court papers read.
Lawyers for Iraqi refugees filed the suit in federal court arguing Darweesh and Alshawi were being unlawfully held "solely pursuant" to an executive order issued on January 27, 2017.
Arguing that their clients have "valid entry documents," they say the were blocked from exiting John F. Kennedy International Airport and detained.
"Because the executive order is unlawful as applied to petitioners, their continued detention based solely on the executive order violates their Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights," the lawyers argue in court papers.
The lawsuit was earlier reported by The New York Times.
Immigration-rights groups, including the National Immigration Law Center. and the ACLU, are representing the Iraqi men. Lawyers for the Iraqis are aiming to file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of other refugees.
"Our courageous plaintiff and countless others risked their lives helping U.S. service members in Iraq. Trump's order puts those who have helped us in harm's way by denying them the safe harbor they have been promised in the United States," said Karen Tumlin, the legal director of the NILC.
Trump signs executive order to keep out 'radical Islamic terrorists'
Things are swinging along now.
It's nice to have a decision-maker in the Whitehouse for a change, instead of a bureaucreat
In their first phone conversation that lasted nearly an hour, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the new US President Donald Trump have outlined their intent to cooperate on issues ranging from defeating Islamic State to mending bilateral economic ties.
“Both sides expressed their readiness to make active joint efforts to stabilize and develop Russia-US cooperation on a constructive, equitable and mutually beneficial basis,” as well as “build up partner cooperation” on a wide range of international issues, according to a Kremlin statement following their discussion.
The White House said that the “positive” conversation was “a significant start to improving the relationship between the United States and Russia that is in need of repair.”
“Both President Trump and President Putin are hopeful that after today’s call the two sides can move quickly to tackle terrorism and other important issues of mutual concern,” the White House statement added.
https://www.rt.com/news/375416-putin-trump-telephone-call/
It's nice to have a decision-maker in the Whitehouse for a change, instead of a bureaucreat
In their first phone conversation that lasted nearly an hour, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the new US President Donald Trump have outlined their intent to cooperate on issues ranging from defeating Islamic State to mending bilateral economic ties.
“Both sides expressed their readiness to make active joint efforts to stabilize and develop Russia-US cooperation on a constructive, equitable and mutually beneficial basis,” as well as “build up partner cooperation” on a wide range of international issues, according to a Kremlin statement following their discussion.
The White House said that the “positive” conversation was “a significant start to improving the relationship between the United States and Russia that is in need of repair.”
“Both President Trump and President Putin are hopeful that after today’s call the two sides can move quickly to tackle terrorism and other important issues of mutual concern,” the White House statement added.
https://www.rt.com/news/375416-putin-trump-telephone-call/
This one raised my eyebrows for a few seconds...before I twigged, lol, no prizes for guessing which government this particular order is aimed at
"A ban on administration officials ever lobbying on behalf of a foreign government"
----------------------
Other executive orders issued by Mr Trump on Saturday were:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660
"A ban on administration officials ever lobbying on behalf of a foreign government"
----------------------
Other executive orders issued by Mr Trump on Saturday were:
- A ban on administration officials ever lobbying on behalf of a foreign government
- An order to Defence Secretary Jim Mattis to come up with a plan within 30 days to defeat so-called Islamic State
- Restructuring the National Security Council with a key role for Steve Bannon, the former right-wing media executive who is now Mr Trump's top strategist
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660
Can't say my feelings about trump and what has happened during his first week in office any better...
------------
Hussman Funds - Weekly Market Comment: On Governance - January 30, 2017
January 30, 2017On Governance
John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
Those who aspire to “right speech” often measure their words with four questions: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? Is it the right time? Right speech should not escalate conflict, but it doesn’t retreat from necessary truth, and criticisms don’t always seem kind. The question of right speech is the question of how one might best serve others. Criticism with the intent to offend is not constructive, but silence is equally detrimental when it quietly endorses a pattern of offense, or encourages the silence of others.
Those of you who have followed my work over the decades know that I look at the world holistically in terms of the interconnection and responsibility we have toward others, and I’ve never been much for separating “business” from those larger values. After all, most of my income regularly goes to charity, and nearly everything that remains follows our own investment discipline. Whether my comments on matters like peace, civility, economic policy or governance are well-received or not (and I'm grateful that they have been over the years), there are moments when one has the responsibility to speak if one has a voice.
Our country faces many legitimate political disagreements. There are segments of America that view government as too bureaucratic, see foreign trade as a source of job insecurity, value national security as a priority, believe that each country has the right to a national identity, and feel that even a nation of immigrants has limits on the pace at which it can assimilate new citizens. They feel that their interests have been subordinated to an elitist philosophy that presumes that regulation is always beneficial, and that government always knows best. We can engage honestly and in good faith about those concerns, even where we disagree. Political issues like that are best settled not by insulting each other, but by openly expressing and listening to the values and concerns of each, and constructing solutions where each side might concede or trade various lower priorities, so that both can achieve their higher ones.
From my perspective, the problem isn’t politics. A civil society can work out those differences. The immediate problem, and the danger, is the mode of leadership itself. A leader can call forth either the “better angels of our nature” or the worst ones. I am troubled for our nation and for the world because of the example of coarse incivility, mean-spirited treatment of others, disingenuous speech, thin temperament, self-aggrandizing vanity, puerile character, overbearing arrogance, habitual provocation, and broad disrespect toward other nations, races, and religions that is now on display as our country’s model of leadership. I am equally troubled by emerging risk, discussed below, to the Constitutional separation of powers.
My intent is not to insult, but rather to name the elements of this pattern. Even in the face of our differences, it’s important that we refuse to resign ourselves to passively accepting or normalizing this model. A dismissive regard for truth, civility, transparency, ethics, and process is dangerous because it lays groundwork and creates potential for unaccountable, corrupt and arbitrary government. I believe that the people of our nation are both decent and vigilant enough to openly and loudly reject this behavior even where they might agree with various policy directions.
There is no changing the outcome of what was already a dismal choice for many Americans, but we can insist on rejecting a model of uncivil behavior. It is unworthy of emulating for ourselves, much less for our children. To minimize detestable behavior is essentially to condone it. It is the refuge of cowards to defend obvious offenses by deconstructing them (“He wasn’t belittling a disabled person. See? He’s waving his hands while belittling this person too”), or to condone predatory behavior toward women by diffusing responsibility (“Yeah, but that other guy was also a predator”). Our intolerance for such a tireless pattern of offense shouldn’t depend on our race, or gender, or ability, or political views, even among those who view the man as a means to achieve political ends.
With regard to international relations, the intentional provocation of both allies and trading partners is of deep concern. One might allow a generous interpretation that these provocations are intended to create new bargaining chips for use in trade negotiations (e.g. insulting Mexico, taunting China about Taiwan and the South China Sea). Yet even setting offenses aside, the associated protectionism is misguided economics, particularly at this point in the economic cycle. Given U.S. labor demographics, even a 4% unemployment rate in 2024 would bring average annual civilian employment growth to just 0.4% annually in the coming 8 years, while a 6% unemployment rate would place intervening job growth at just 0.2% annually. All other economic growth will rely on productivity growth (output per worker). The primary determinant on that front will be growth in U.S. gross domestic investment (GDI). Because of savings-investment dynamics, steep reductions in the trade deficit have always been associated with a collapse in U.S. GDI growth. Put simply, this new trade strategy courts recession or worse. That’s particularly true given a speculative financial bubble resulting from Federal Reserve’s misguided dogma that zero interest rates would bring prosperity without consequence. We now face the third financial collapse since 2000 (more data on that below).
Meanwhile, we should recognize that foreign provocation has also been used around the world, and throughout history, as a strategy to expand domestic control. This often takes the form of “emergency powers.” Given the man’s clear aspiration to accrue and exercise authority, we shouldn’t naively ignore that potential. Recalling James Madison, “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. The means of defense against a foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” We have a leader that talks of the benefits of foreign plunder and the virtues of torture, yet we don’t recognize the seeds of despotism? Oh, that’s right, because we’re talking about the “enemy.”
The enemy. It’s necessary to prosecute those who commit violence, in order to defend the rights of others, but to entertain notions such as torture, plunder, and the violation of human rights is an insult to the virtues our nation has sacrificed so much to achieve. Hatred does not remove hatred. We have to look into causes and conditions. Prejudice against a whole religion will not bring peace, nor will it contribute to an understanding of what motivates extremism. Whether the roots of violence are about foreign influence, territorial control, fear of losing power, protecting an existing way of life, or perceptions of injustice (whether legitimate or imagined), violence is often clothed in religion, both as a mobilization tactic, and so each side can claim that God is on their side. ISIS is no more about Islam than the Troubles in Ireland were about the religious faith of Catholics or Protestants, or the KKK was about Christianity.
We can’t kill and torture our way to peace. We might satisfy pride and the desire for revenge, but the outcome would be a perpetual cycle of hatred, where our children eventually take our place in that cycle. The temptation is for sides both to turn up their high-beams, but as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King implored, “Someone must have sense enough to dim the lights.” Again, yes, those who actually commit violence should justly be prosecuted, but it’s madness to make enemies of entire populations. Along with enforcement against violent extremists, it’s essential to seek out and address the legitimate concerns of moderates. The first step toward peace happens when somebody has the courage to look deeply and ask, “How does the person I call my enemy suffer, and what can I do within my power, and consistent with my security, to address that suffering?”
We are asked to rally around our new Administration, in the hope that it will be successful. Yet if, even at the outset, “success” asks us to accept the insult to loyal allies; if it asks us to accept daily incivility toward other citizens of our country; if it asks us to accept a demonstrably ill-conceived economic dogma that will do little but provoke trade frictions, weaken domestic investment, and provide tax benefits to the business sector, while indiscriminately shifting the costs and externalities of harmful action onto the public and the environment; if it asks us to accept blind prejudice toward other nationalities and religions; and if it flirts with even the prospect of foreign plunder and torture, then there is little question that we have already lost.
A final concern relates to the separation of powers and the relationship between the express will of the People and the actions of the Executive. When the founders of this nation established the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution, they were serious about it. Over time, through lack of vigilance, the public has allowed this separation to be undermined, to the point where people hardly recognize when violations occur. Here is a reminder. Article I Section I places all legislative powers with Congress. Article I Section 7 provides that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, which are then amended by the Senate. Article I Section 8 provides that only Congress has the power to declare war. Article I Section 9 provides that no money may be spent that is not pursuant to a law enacted by Congress.
The Executive branch has the obligationunder Article II Section III to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, and under the Constitution, only after a war is declared by Congress, or the military is called forth by Congress, does the President have the authority to direct military actions. In order to carry out the obligation of Article II Section III, the President may very well issue executive orders, but those orders are not laws in themselves. They are directives that apply only to members of the executive branch, for the purpose of upholding and faithfully executing existing laws previously passed by Congress. If an existing law infringes on the rights of the people, or overreaches the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the role of the Supreme Court is to adjudicate those disputes. If an executive order or an agency’s interpretation of an existing law is challenged, the Court has previously articulated a two-part test: if the intent of Congress is clear, the Court should “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” If the intent of the law is ambiguous, the Court should examine whether the interpretation is a permissible construction.
What I find alarming is that recent executive orders have been announced as new proclamations, instead of faithfully executing the provisions of existing laws duly enacted and funded by Congress under Article I of the Constitution. While the formal language of the orders themselves might reference existing laws, or give lip-service with the phrase “to the extent permitted by law,” the orders then self-contradict by directing the circumvention of those laws (for example, “to the extent permitted by law,” agencies are directed to “waive, grant exceptions from, or delay” the execution of the law, or to identify sources of funding for a project that is nowhere specified in the law). To ask "where was this criticism during the past 8 years?" is to ignore the distinction between the faithful execution of laws one may dislike, and the invention of provisions that do not exist under prevailing law.
Even the media fail to discuss the fact that the Executive is both obligated to, and constrained by, the express will of the People, not the other way around. Only when Congress passes a law does it become the law of the land, provided it is otherwise Constitutional. To allow a weakening of these separate and enumerated powers is to invite the arbitrary exercise of authority, and even the risk of tyranny, rather than limited, representative government of the people that honors the Bill of Rights, equal protection, and the rule-of-law.
I understand that facts are facts, and that this is the election result that our system produced. So what is the point, or the desired outcome, of protest? The fundamental outcome is to raise our vigilance; to preserve our character; to defend the rule of law and the separation of powers; to refuse to normalize or quietly endorse incivility; to promote diplomacy even as we pursue security; to demand more than the example set before us; to call us again and again to the better angels of our nature.
We should voice our full expectation that Congress defend those enumerated powers, unmoved by speeches that assert the right of the executive to bind our nation to some “new decree” (who uses the word “decree” in an inauguration speech?) We should also ask that regardless of party, our representatives exercise those powers with dignity that befits our nation. As for individual issues, remember that the laws of our country are not established by tweets in the middle of the night. They are established by Congress. Citizens lose their voice when they fail to use it. All of us, left, right, or moderate, should protect that freedom. The U.S. Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. The U.S. House switchboard is (202) 225-3121. An actual person will answer, and can direct you to your state representative. Feel free, also, to forward or reprint these comments as you wish.
------------
Hussman Funds - Weekly Market Comment: On Governance - January 30, 2017
January 30, 2017On Governance
John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
Those who aspire to “right speech” often measure their words with four questions: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? Is it the right time? Right speech should not escalate conflict, but it doesn’t retreat from necessary truth, and criticisms don’t always seem kind. The question of right speech is the question of how one might best serve others. Criticism with the intent to offend is not constructive, but silence is equally detrimental when it quietly endorses a pattern of offense, or encourages the silence of others.
Those of you who have followed my work over the decades know that I look at the world holistically in terms of the interconnection and responsibility we have toward others, and I’ve never been much for separating “business” from those larger values. After all, most of my income regularly goes to charity, and nearly everything that remains follows our own investment discipline. Whether my comments on matters like peace, civility, economic policy or governance are well-received or not (and I'm grateful that they have been over the years), there are moments when one has the responsibility to speak if one has a voice.
Our country faces many legitimate political disagreements. There are segments of America that view government as too bureaucratic, see foreign trade as a source of job insecurity, value national security as a priority, believe that each country has the right to a national identity, and feel that even a nation of immigrants has limits on the pace at which it can assimilate new citizens. They feel that their interests have been subordinated to an elitist philosophy that presumes that regulation is always beneficial, and that government always knows best. We can engage honestly and in good faith about those concerns, even where we disagree. Political issues like that are best settled not by insulting each other, but by openly expressing and listening to the values and concerns of each, and constructing solutions where each side might concede or trade various lower priorities, so that both can achieve their higher ones.
From my perspective, the problem isn’t politics. A civil society can work out those differences. The immediate problem, and the danger, is the mode of leadership itself. A leader can call forth either the “better angels of our nature” or the worst ones. I am troubled for our nation and for the world because of the example of coarse incivility, mean-spirited treatment of others, disingenuous speech, thin temperament, self-aggrandizing vanity, puerile character, overbearing arrogance, habitual provocation, and broad disrespect toward other nations, races, and religions that is now on display as our country’s model of leadership. I am equally troubled by emerging risk, discussed below, to the Constitutional separation of powers.
My intent is not to insult, but rather to name the elements of this pattern. Even in the face of our differences, it’s important that we refuse to resign ourselves to passively accepting or normalizing this model. A dismissive regard for truth, civility, transparency, ethics, and process is dangerous because it lays groundwork and creates potential for unaccountable, corrupt and arbitrary government. I believe that the people of our nation are both decent and vigilant enough to openly and loudly reject this behavior even where they might agree with various policy directions.
There is no changing the outcome of what was already a dismal choice for many Americans, but we can insist on rejecting a model of uncivil behavior. It is unworthy of emulating for ourselves, much less for our children. To minimize detestable behavior is essentially to condone it. It is the refuge of cowards to defend obvious offenses by deconstructing them (“He wasn’t belittling a disabled person. See? He’s waving his hands while belittling this person too”), or to condone predatory behavior toward women by diffusing responsibility (“Yeah, but that other guy was also a predator”). Our intolerance for such a tireless pattern of offense shouldn’t depend on our race, or gender, or ability, or political views, even among those who view the man as a means to achieve political ends.
With regard to international relations, the intentional provocation of both allies and trading partners is of deep concern. One might allow a generous interpretation that these provocations are intended to create new bargaining chips for use in trade negotiations (e.g. insulting Mexico, taunting China about Taiwan and the South China Sea). Yet even setting offenses aside, the associated protectionism is misguided economics, particularly at this point in the economic cycle. Given U.S. labor demographics, even a 4% unemployment rate in 2024 would bring average annual civilian employment growth to just 0.4% annually in the coming 8 years, while a 6% unemployment rate would place intervening job growth at just 0.2% annually. All other economic growth will rely on productivity growth (output per worker). The primary determinant on that front will be growth in U.S. gross domestic investment (GDI). Because of savings-investment dynamics, steep reductions in the trade deficit have always been associated with a collapse in U.S. GDI growth. Put simply, this new trade strategy courts recession or worse. That’s particularly true given a speculative financial bubble resulting from Federal Reserve’s misguided dogma that zero interest rates would bring prosperity without consequence. We now face the third financial collapse since 2000 (more data on that below).
Meanwhile, we should recognize that foreign provocation has also been used around the world, and throughout history, as a strategy to expand domestic control. This often takes the form of “emergency powers.” Given the man’s clear aspiration to accrue and exercise authority, we shouldn’t naively ignore that potential. Recalling James Madison, “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. The means of defense against a foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” We have a leader that talks of the benefits of foreign plunder and the virtues of torture, yet we don’t recognize the seeds of despotism? Oh, that’s right, because we’re talking about the “enemy.”
The enemy. It’s necessary to prosecute those who commit violence, in order to defend the rights of others, but to entertain notions such as torture, plunder, and the violation of human rights is an insult to the virtues our nation has sacrificed so much to achieve. Hatred does not remove hatred. We have to look into causes and conditions. Prejudice against a whole religion will not bring peace, nor will it contribute to an understanding of what motivates extremism. Whether the roots of violence are about foreign influence, territorial control, fear of losing power, protecting an existing way of life, or perceptions of injustice (whether legitimate or imagined), violence is often clothed in religion, both as a mobilization tactic, and so each side can claim that God is on their side. ISIS is no more about Islam than the Troubles in Ireland were about the religious faith of Catholics or Protestants, or the KKK was about Christianity.
We can’t kill and torture our way to peace. We might satisfy pride and the desire for revenge, but the outcome would be a perpetual cycle of hatred, where our children eventually take our place in that cycle. The temptation is for sides both to turn up their high-beams, but as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King implored, “Someone must have sense enough to dim the lights.” Again, yes, those who actually commit violence should justly be prosecuted, but it’s madness to make enemies of entire populations. Along with enforcement against violent extremists, it’s essential to seek out and address the legitimate concerns of moderates. The first step toward peace happens when somebody has the courage to look deeply and ask, “How does the person I call my enemy suffer, and what can I do within my power, and consistent with my security, to address that suffering?”
We are asked to rally around our new Administration, in the hope that it will be successful. Yet if, even at the outset, “success” asks us to accept the insult to loyal allies; if it asks us to accept daily incivility toward other citizens of our country; if it asks us to accept a demonstrably ill-conceived economic dogma that will do little but provoke trade frictions, weaken domestic investment, and provide tax benefits to the business sector, while indiscriminately shifting the costs and externalities of harmful action onto the public and the environment; if it asks us to accept blind prejudice toward other nationalities and religions; and if it flirts with even the prospect of foreign plunder and torture, then there is little question that we have already lost.
A final concern relates to the separation of powers and the relationship between the express will of the People and the actions of the Executive. When the founders of this nation established the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution, they were serious about it. Over time, through lack of vigilance, the public has allowed this separation to be undermined, to the point where people hardly recognize when violations occur. Here is a reminder. Article I Section I places all legislative powers with Congress. Article I Section 7 provides that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, which are then amended by the Senate. Article I Section 8 provides that only Congress has the power to declare war. Article I Section 9 provides that no money may be spent that is not pursuant to a law enacted by Congress.
The Executive branch has the obligationunder Article II Section III to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, and under the Constitution, only after a war is declared by Congress, or the military is called forth by Congress, does the President have the authority to direct military actions. In order to carry out the obligation of Article II Section III, the President may very well issue executive orders, but those orders are not laws in themselves. They are directives that apply only to members of the executive branch, for the purpose of upholding and faithfully executing existing laws previously passed by Congress. If an existing law infringes on the rights of the people, or overreaches the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the role of the Supreme Court is to adjudicate those disputes. If an executive order or an agency’s interpretation of an existing law is challenged, the Court has previously articulated a two-part test: if the intent of Congress is clear, the Court should “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” If the intent of the law is ambiguous, the Court should examine whether the interpretation is a permissible construction.
What I find alarming is that recent executive orders have been announced as new proclamations, instead of faithfully executing the provisions of existing laws duly enacted and funded by Congress under Article I of the Constitution. While the formal language of the orders themselves might reference existing laws, or give lip-service with the phrase “to the extent permitted by law,” the orders then self-contradict by directing the circumvention of those laws (for example, “to the extent permitted by law,” agencies are directed to “waive, grant exceptions from, or delay” the execution of the law, or to identify sources of funding for a project that is nowhere specified in the law). To ask "where was this criticism during the past 8 years?" is to ignore the distinction between the faithful execution of laws one may dislike, and the invention of provisions that do not exist under prevailing law.
Even the media fail to discuss the fact that the Executive is both obligated to, and constrained by, the express will of the People, not the other way around. Only when Congress passes a law does it become the law of the land, provided it is otherwise Constitutional. To allow a weakening of these separate and enumerated powers is to invite the arbitrary exercise of authority, and even the risk of tyranny, rather than limited, representative government of the people that honors the Bill of Rights, equal protection, and the rule-of-law.
I understand that facts are facts, and that this is the election result that our system produced. So what is the point, or the desired outcome, of protest? The fundamental outcome is to raise our vigilance; to preserve our character; to defend the rule of law and the separation of powers; to refuse to normalize or quietly endorse incivility; to promote diplomacy even as we pursue security; to demand more than the example set before us; to call us again and again to the better angels of our nature.
We should voice our full expectation that Congress defend those enumerated powers, unmoved by speeches that assert the right of the executive to bind our nation to some “new decree” (who uses the word “decree” in an inauguration speech?) We should also ask that regardless of party, our representatives exercise those powers with dignity that befits our nation. As for individual issues, remember that the laws of our country are not established by tweets in the middle of the night. They are established by Congress. Citizens lose their voice when they fail to use it. All of us, left, right, or moderate, should protect that freedom. The U.S. Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. The U.S. House switchboard is (202) 225-3121. An actual person will answer, and can direct you to your state representative. Feel free, also, to forward or reprint these comments as you wish.
A lot of anger got Trumpy into the Whitehouse
Anger about amazing levels of corruption, no jobs etc.
The bottom line is that the Liberals have simply been in power for too long and have become institutionally corrupt.
They cared not about the effects of their policies upon many people and they paid the ultimate electoral price for that attitude
Once Trump gets some jobs and cash into the system things will start levelling off, the pendulum is swinging back fast at the moment
Personally speaking, I'd give it a year or two to pan out
Anger about amazing levels of corruption, no jobs etc.
The bottom line is that the Liberals have simply been in power for too long and have become institutionally corrupt.
They cared not about the effects of their policies upon many people and they paid the ultimate electoral price for that attitude
Once Trump gets some jobs and cash into the system things will start levelling off, the pendulum is swinging back fast at the moment
Personally speaking, I'd give it a year or two to pan out
That's all fine and dandy
but in one week he's got in office all he's done is abuse presidential powers.. continue his twitter rampage.. in interviews consistently focus on crowds and his personal ego .. fake news.. Mexican walls.. very anti American (melting pot of immigrants) Muslim bans (our immigration system is already very restrictive/thorough in regards to refugees when compared to say Germany)..
hopefully congress steps up and does their job soon and show him who's really the boss... it's not him nor shouldn't be.. as our founders intended..
but in one week he's got in office all he's done is abuse presidential powers.. continue his twitter rampage.. in interviews consistently focus on crowds and his personal ego .. fake news.. Mexican walls.. very anti American (melting pot of immigrants) Muslim bans (our immigration system is already very restrictive/thorough in regards to refugees when compared to say Germany)..
hopefully congress steps up and does their job soon and show him who's really the boss... it's not him nor shouldn't be.. as our founders intended..
Trump is and always will be a humongous narcissist.. this is why I never liked him as a POTUS candidate.. had little to do with policy as I lean anti-establishment/right/libertarian.. and more to do with I can see a self centered asshole a mile away..
Just your classic blowhard who's only concerned about himself and his image..
quotes from his 1987 book art of the deal that sums him up well.. number 6 basically explains that he's one huge bullshiter.. that's how he became a billionaire.. bullshitting people and stepping on whomever he needed to along the way..
Just your classic blowhard who's only concerned about himself and his image..
quotes from his 1987 book art of the deal that sums him up well.. number 6 basically explains that he's one huge bullshiter.. that's how he became a billionaire.. bullshitting people and stepping on whomever he needed to along the way..
- On a daily schedule: "I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can't be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you've got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops."
- On critics: "The way I see it, critics get to say what they want to about my work, so why shouldn't I be able to say what I want to about theirs?"
- On flexibility: "I never get too attached to one deal or one approach. For starters, I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first."
- On the press: "One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better. It's in the nature of the job, and I understand that. The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.
- On bad press: [F]rom a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about have far outweighed the drawbacks. It's really quite simple ... The funny thing is that even a critical story, which may be hurtful personally, can be very valuable to your business."
- On exaggeration: "The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration, and a very effective form of promotion."
- On fighting back: "[W]hen people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard. The risk is you'll make a bad situation worse, and I certainly don't recommend this approach to everyone. But my experience is that if you're fighting for something you believe in — even if it means alienating some people along the way — things usually work out for the best in the end."
- On results: "You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."
- On competing: "I'm the first to admit that I am very competitive and that I'll do nearly anything within legal bounds to win. Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition."
Keep fueling hate as well as divide and conquer trumpy
-------------
[h=1]Québec mosque shooting: five reportedly killed in gun attack | World news | The Guardian[/h]Guardian staff
Sunday 29 January 2017 22.06 EST
The shooting at a mosque in Québec was carried out by three attackers, said witnesses.Five people have reportedly been killed and several injured in a gun attack at a mosque in Québec City, the mosque’s president has said.
The shooting was carried out by three attackers and happened during evening prayers at about 8pm on Sunday, said witnesses.
About 40 people were thought to be in the building – the Québec City Islamic cultural center on Sainte-Foy Street – at the time.
Two arrests have been made, according to Radio Canada, and a large security cordon has been set up around the site.
The city’s police confirmed the fatal shooting and said arrests had been made.
In June, during the holy month of Ramadan, a pig’s head was left at the mosque, CBC reported.
This is a breaking news story, please check back for updates
-------------
[h=1]Québec mosque shooting: five reportedly killed in gun attack | World news | The Guardian[/h]Guardian staff
Sunday 29 January 2017 22.06 EST
The shooting was carried out by three attackers and happened during evening prayers at about 8pm on Sunday, said witnesses.
About 40 people were thought to be in the building – the Québec City Islamic cultural center on Sainte-Foy Street – at the time.
Two arrests have been made, according to Radio Canada, and a large security cordon has been set up around the site.
The city’s police confirmed the fatal shooting and said arrests had been made.
In June, during the holy month of Ramadan, a pig’s head was left at the mosque, CBC reported.
This is a breaking news story, please check back for updates
If I was you I would take a month or a fortnight away from the MSM propaganda kool-aid fountain Tiz
6 folk got shot in North America yesterday? the gun toting capital of the world? Really?
100 people got killed on the roads yesterday. 100 will be killed on the roads today and 100 tomorrow, is anyone worried?
A Hiroshima bomb hits the US every 10 years, 300,000 car deaths.
Do you feel an overwhelming sense of fear when you go out into the street because it's full of people killing cars?
Like I say, give things a year or two to pan out, and for your own good ignore the MSM kool-aid.
6 folk got shot in North America yesterday? the gun toting capital of the world? Really?
100 people got killed on the roads yesterday. 100 will be killed on the roads today and 100 tomorrow, is anyone worried?
A Hiroshima bomb hits the US every 10 years, 300,000 car deaths.
Do you feel an overwhelming sense of fear when you go out into the street because it's full of people killing cars?
Like I say, give things a year or two to pan out, and for your own good ignore the MSM kool-aid.
As far as Silicon Valleys "morals" are concerned.... well those guys have been happy to support an oppressive communist regime for decades as long as they can turn a profit from it.
Silicon Valley lashes out at Trump ban
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38794915
Silicon Valley lashes out at Trump ban
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38794915
Recent interview I watched with trump he bragged about Dow 20k and how it was about his pro business policies... remember this when the economy tanks (it won't be his fault.. economy has been on edge of a cliff/bubbled for a while)
but since he took credit for 20k he should take all the heat for its demise..
but since he took credit for 20k he should take all the heat for its demise..
Just more liberal propaganda eekster.. 9/11 was carried out predominantly by Saudi nationals.. of course not on the ban list since they our buddies...
------------
[h=1]How many fatal terror attacks have refugees carried out in the US? None[/h]By Eric Levenson, CNN
Updated 6:54 PM EST, Sun January 29, 2017
Story highlights
(CNN)Donald Trump first introduced theidea of a Muslim travel ban in December 2015, shortly after Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, shot and killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California.
But President Trump's executive order temporarily banning all refugees and suspending travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries would not have applied to either Farook or Malik.
Nor would the travel ban have affected the perpetrators of any of the major Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil in recent years.
Before 1980, three refugees had successfully carried out terrorist attacks; all three were Cuban refugees, and a total of three people were killed.
Since the Cato Institute analysis was published in September 2016, a Somalian refugee injured 13 people at Ohio State University in November in what officials investigated as a terrorist attack. No one died.
In fact, the primary perpetrators of the major terror attacks have mostly been US-born citizens or permanent legal residents originally from countries not included in the ban.
Here's a look at the origin stories of the terrorists who committed major attacks in the name of radical Islam in recent years, including those in San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston and New York.
[h=3]San Bernardino attacks[/h]Although San Bernardino inspired Trump's travel ban, neither of the shooters would have been affected by it.
Farook, 28, was an American citizen born in Chicago. Malik, 29, was born and raised in Pakistan, and later lived in Saudi Arabia. She arrived in the United States on a K-1 fiancée visa and later became a permanent resident.
Trump's executive order bans travel from seven countries -- Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Iran -- but it does not ban travel from residents of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. In addition, the K-1 fiancee program remains in place.
[h=3]New York and New Jersey explosions[/h]Ahmad Khan Rahimi faces an array ofbombing, weapons and attempted murder charges in two on September 17, 2016, incidents. He is accused of detonating bombs in New Jersey and in New York's Chelsea neighborhood. The explosion in Chelsea injured 29 people.
Rahimi was born in Afghanistan and first came to the United States in 1995, following several years after his father arrived seeking asylum. Rahimi became a naturalized US citizen in 2011. He had recently spent time in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.
Neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan is on Trump's list of banned countries.
[h=3]Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting[/h]Omar Mateen, the man who shot and killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, was an American citizen living in Fort Pierce, Florida. He was born in New York, and his parents were from Afghanistan.
His widow, Noor Salman, was arrested earlier this month on charges of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting her husband's material support to ISIS. She grew up in Rodeo, California, and her parents immigrated to the United States from the West Bank in 1985, according to The New York Times.
Neither Afghanistan nor the West Bank is included on the list of banned countries.
[h=3]Boston Marathon bombings[/h]Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, were born in Kyrgyzstan to parents originally from war-torn Chechnya.
The Tsarnaev family arrived in the United States when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was 8 years old, and they applied for and were granted political asylum. The process for applying for political asylum is different from the process of arriving as a refugee.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger brother, became a naturalized citizen in September 2012.
Chechnya and Kyrgyzstan are not included on the list of banned countries.
[h=3]World Trade Center, September 11, 2001[/h]Of the 19 people who hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001, 15 of them hailed from Saudi Arabia. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.
None of those countries is included on the list of banned countries.
------------
[h=1]How many fatal terror attacks have refugees carried out in the US? None[/h]By Eric Levenson, CNN
Updated 6:54 PM EST, Sun January 29, 2017
- No refugees have carried out major fatal terrorist attacks in the US since the Refugee Act of 1980
- Attacks not perpetrated by US citizens have involved people from countries not included in the ban
(CNN)Donald Trump first introduced theidea of a Muslim travel ban in December 2015, shortly after Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, shot and killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California.
But President Trump's executive order temporarily banning all refugees and suspending travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries would not have applied to either Farook or Malik.
Nor would the travel ban have affected the perpetrators of any of the major Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil in recent years.
No person accepted to the United States as a refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up systematic procedures for accepting refugees into the United States, according to an analysis of terrorism immigration risks by the Cato Institute.Before 1980, three refugees had successfully carried out terrorist attacks; all three were Cuban refugees, and a total of three people were killed.
Since the Cato Institute analysis was published in September 2016, a Somalian refugee injured 13 people at Ohio State University in November in what officials investigated as a terrorist attack. No one died.
In fact, the primary perpetrators of the major terror attacks have mostly been US-born citizens or permanent legal residents originally from countries not included in the ban.
Here's a look at the origin stories of the terrorists who committed major attacks in the name of radical Islam in recent years, including those in San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston and New York.
[h=3]San Bernardino attacks[/h]Although San Bernardino inspired Trump's travel ban, neither of the shooters would have been affected by it.
Farook, 28, was an American citizen born in Chicago. Malik, 29, was born and raised in Pakistan, and later lived in Saudi Arabia. She arrived in the United States on a K-1 fiancée visa and later became a permanent resident.
Trump's executive order bans travel from seven countries -- Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Iran -- but it does not ban travel from residents of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. In addition, the K-1 fiancee program remains in place.
[h=3]New York and New Jersey explosions[/h]Ahmad Khan Rahimi faces an array ofbombing, weapons and attempted murder charges in two on September 17, 2016, incidents. He is accused of detonating bombs in New Jersey and in New York's Chelsea neighborhood. The explosion in Chelsea injured 29 people.
Rahimi was born in Afghanistan and first came to the United States in 1995, following several years after his father arrived seeking asylum. Rahimi became a naturalized US citizen in 2011. He had recently spent time in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.
Neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan is on Trump's list of banned countries.
[h=3]Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting[/h]Omar Mateen, the man who shot and killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, was an American citizen living in Fort Pierce, Florida. He was born in New York, and his parents were from Afghanistan.
His widow, Noor Salman, was arrested earlier this month on charges of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting her husband's material support to ISIS. She grew up in Rodeo, California, and her parents immigrated to the United States from the West Bank in 1985, according to The New York Times.
Neither Afghanistan nor the West Bank is included on the list of banned countries.
[h=3]Boston Marathon bombings[/h]Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, were born in Kyrgyzstan to parents originally from war-torn Chechnya.
The Tsarnaev family arrived in the United States when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was 8 years old, and they applied for and were granted political asylum. The process for applying for political asylum is different from the process of arriving as a refugee.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger brother, became a naturalized citizen in September 2012.
Chechnya and Kyrgyzstan are not included on the list of banned countries.
[h=3]World Trade Center, September 11, 2001[/h]Of the 19 people who hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001, 15 of them hailed from Saudi Arabia. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.
None of those countries is included on the list of banned countries.
