theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

REALITY Might Just Be a Gigantic HOLOGRAM

Margi Murphy

The universe is one “vast and complex hologram” and our three-dimensional world may be an illusion, scientists have claimed.
British, Canadian and Italian scientists have found what they claim is the first evidence that our world is not what we thought it was.
The astrophysicists studied the “afterglow” left over from the Big Bang and found substantial evidence that the universe is holographic.
Bizarre as it may seem, there is currently the same amount of evidence for a holographic world as there is for the traditional structure of the universe, the scientists at the University of Southampton claimed.
The concept of a holographic universe was first suggested in the 1990s but it’s not until now that telescope data has been able to back it up.
The concept is similar to watching a 3D film in a movie.
Viewers see the pictures as having height, width and, crucially, depth when in fact it all originates from a flat 2D screen.
The difference in our 3D universe is that we can touch objects and the “projection” is thus “real” from our perspective.
Similarly, we perceive everything around us to be 3D when they are actually flat, the theory suggests.

Our perception of reality might actually be a “Star Wars”-style hologram.20th Century Fox
It’s a mind-blowing theory, considering the prevalence of holograms in our day-to-day world (including Japan’s new brand of holographic wives).
Professor Kostas Skenderis, of the University of Southampton, said: “Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field.”
“The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire universe is encoded.”
Skenderis added: “Holography is a huge leap forward in the way we think about the structure and creation of the universe.”
“Einstein’s theory of general relativity explains almost everything large scale in the universe very well but starts to unravel when examining its origins and mechanisms at the quantum level.”
“Scientists have been working for decades to combine Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum theory.”
“Some believe the concept of a holographic universe has the potential to reconcile the two. I hope our research takes us another step towards this.”
The researchers, from the University of Southampton (UK), University of Waterloo (Canada), Perimeter Institute (Canada), INFN, Lecce (Italy) and the University of Salento (Italy), have published their findings in the journal Physical Review Letters.
It follows the chilling study that revealed the universe is heading for a “cold, dark, apocalypse” a lot sooner than we thought.


Judson Berger

President Trump nominated federal Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, choosing a jurist widely seen by conservatives as a fitting successor to the late Antonin Scalia – and touching off what is sure to be a fierce confirmation battle with Senate Democrats already vowing resistance. 
Touting his nominee's credentials and legal mind, the president said he was living up to his own vow during the campaign to nominate someone who respects the law and "loves" the Constitution. 
"Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support," Trump said, noting he was confirmed unanimously to his current judicial post.
He quipped: "Does that happen anymore?" 
Gorsuch, 49, has served on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver for more than a decade.
Trump's move to elevate Gorsuch was hailed by a range of conservative groups and Republican lawmakers late Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the judge an "outstanding" pick who "understands the constitutional limits on the authority of a federal judge." 
Trump’s choice, if confirmed to the high court, would take the seat that has remained vacant since Justice Scalia died nearly a year ago. The nominee was among Trump’s original list of 21 potential choices circulated during the presidential campaign. 
But Democrats are still smarting over Republicans’ refusal to consider then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, and some have vowed to retaliate by opposing Trump’s pick. Late Tuesday, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer raised the potential threat of a filibuster, saying the Senate "must insist" the nominee garner 60 votes. 
If Schumer or any of his colleagues take the procedural step to require 60 votes, Trump would need to find at least eight Democrats to join Republicans in supporting his pick. 
"The burden is on Judge Neil Gorsuch to prove himself to be within the legal mainstream and, in this new era, willing to vigorously defend the Constitution from abuses of the Executive branch and protect the constitutionally enshrined rights of all Americans," Schumer said in a statement. "Given his record, I have very serious doubts about Judge Gorsuch's ability to meet this standard."  
Trump, though, said his nominee's qualifications "are beyond dispute." 
He added, "I only hope that both Democrats and Republicans can come together for once, for the good of the country.” 
Trump spoke for less than eight minutes before turning the podium over to Gorsuch, during the brief rollout in the East Room of the White House.
“You’ve entrusted me with a most solemn assignment,” Gorsuch said, vowing if confirmed to be a “faithful servant” of the Constitution and the law.
He also honored Scalia as a “lion of the law,” saying all his colleagues cherished the late justice’s “wisdom” and “humor.” He added, “Like them, I miss him.”
Gorsuch, showing flashes of humor himself, is in many ways similar to the man whose seat he hopes to fill.
Like Scalia, he is an originalist who believes judges should follow the text and original meaning of the Constitution. He also has a record of standing up for religious liberty, having written in favor of Hobby Lobby and The Little Sisters of the Poor when they challenged the ObamaCare contraception mandate. 
He attended Columbia, Harvard and Oxford universities, an academic background lauded by Trump in Tuesday's announcement. 
The president originally was planning to name his Supreme Court choice on Thursday, but he moved up the announcement amid a bipartisan backlash over Friday’s executive order on refugee and immigration policies.
He now turns Washington’s focus to the debate over his high court pick, one sure to draw advocacy groups on both sides into the fray. Conservative groups will fight hard for Gorsuch's confirmation, against expected Democratic and liberal opposition. 
Schumer and his Democratic colleagues have been increasingly at odds with the Trump administration in the wake of the immigration executive order. If Democrats do follow through on a filibuster, it could spur conservative senators to try overhauling Senate rules to lower the threshold from 60 votes to 51 – the so-called “nuclear option.”
McConnell called earlier Tuesday for the nominee to be treated fairly.
"What I would expect from our Democratic friends is the nominee be handled similarly to President Clinton's two nominees in his first term and President Obama's two nominees in his first term,” McConnell said.
But Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley has signaled he's ready to fight, telling supporters the seat was stolen from Obama since his pick never got a vote, saying he won’t be “complicit in this theft.” 
The vacancy on the Supreme Court was a major factor for many voters in the 2016 presidential election. According to the Fox News exit poll, more than one-in-five voters said nominations for the high court were the most important factor in casting their vote – and those voters went for Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton 56-41 percent. 
Fox News' Bill Mears, Shannon Bream and Mike Emanuel contributed to this report. 

Democrats BOYCOTT Hearings on KEY Trump Picks

‘Most pathetic’ thing I’ve seen in Senate

Image result for Democrats boycott hearings on key Trump picks; ‘Most pathetic’ thing I’ve seen in Senate

Tom Howell Jr.

Senate Democrats on Tuesday boycotted a critical markup of President Donald Trump’s nominations to lead the Treasury and Health and Human Services departments, leaving a senior GOP leader aghast and saying there is “no excuse” for “this type of crap.”
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican, and fellow GOP members said it was unprecedented and “shocking” for Democrats to skip the planned roll calls on Steve Mnuchin for Treasury and Rep. Tom Price at HHS.
Republicans were hoping to advance each of the nominees to the full Senate, so they could be confirmed by the GOP majority and fill out Mr. Trump’s Cabinet.
Yet Democrats said both picks didn’t give straight answers during the vetting process, so they opted to delay.
Mr. Hatch said the boycott, which denied the panel the quorum needed to proceed, showed an alarming degree of disrespect for the nominees.
“This is one of the most disappointing days in my 40 years in the U.S. Senate,” Mr. Hatch said.
He also said Democrats couldn’t “lay a glove” on either nominee during their confirmation hearing, so Democrats should get over their disgust with Mr. Trump and his picks.
“These two nominees are going to through, regardless,” he said, vowing to schedule a new markup soon.
The panel’s top-ranking Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, had signaled Monday he was prepared to vote against both nominees.
He said Mr. Price wasn’t straight with him about his ability to secure stock in an Australian medical company at a discounted price for select investors, even as he served as a leading health policy guru in Congress.
Mr. Wyden said he couldn’t vote for Mr. Mnuchin, either, because the nominee publicly denied that OneWest Bank engaged in the “robe-signing” of foreclosure documents under his leadership, despite court documents and testimony that seemed to show otherwise.
“This morning, the Finance Committee was scheduled to vote on two nominees who have misled the public and held back important information about their backgrounds. Until questions are answered, Democrats believe the committee should not move forward with either nomination,” Mr. Wyden said.
The boycott left a lopsided dais of stunned Republican members, who said Democrats had an unspecified “list of demands” regarding the nominees.
Republicans said they gave deference to Mr. Obama’s picks eight years ago, and that Democrats are leaving critical agencies without leaders.
“If the media doesn’t criticize them for this, then you’ll know what the country is going to go through in the future, Mr. Hatch said.
Mr. Hatch noted that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee convening down the hall “can’t stand” Mr. Trump’s pick for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
“But at least they showed up,” he said.

Supreme Court NOMINEE Has Both Sides Preparing For BATTLE

Trump to name pick for court on Today!

The absence of a ninth justice since Antonin Scalia's death last February has hamstrung the Supreme Court in several cases and has forced the justices to look for less-contentious issues on which they are less likely to divide by 4-4 votes. (Associated Press)

Alex Swoyer

President Trump will announce his nominee to the Supreme Court on Tuesday night and within seconds both sides will be rolling out email blasts and advertising as they try to define the pick in Americans’ minds, knowing that the initial hours and days are crucial.
That became clear in the 1980s when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, delivered a vigorous attack on Judge Robert Bork, President Reagan’s pick to fill an empty Supreme Court seat, tarring the judge as a legal reprobate and saying “Robert Bork’s America” would restore Jim Crow. Kennedy’s barrage of criticism helped sink the nomination.
Conservative groups say they are ready to prevent a repeat. One legal organization says it’s ready to spend at least $10 million to defend a Trump Supreme Court pick.
The Judicial Crisis Network, the group with a $10 million budget, told The Washington Times that it is planning to run ads in nine Democrat-controlled states that Mr. Trump won in the November election.
All nine senators are up for re-election this year, and Carrie Severino, the Judicial Crisis Network’s chief counsel, said they will have to pick between backing Mr. Trump’s nominee or siding with their party’s most liberal senators who are promising a filibuster.
“We actually are planning on launching the biggest campaign that’s ever been launched in favor of a Supreme Court justice,” Ms. Severino said.
The seat came open last February with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Senate Republicans kept it open for nearly a year by refusing to vote on President Obama’s nominee, Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Democratic leaders, still salty over that obstruction and already convinced that whoever Mr. Trump picks will be objectionable, have vowed payback. They will be backed by liberal groups just as eager as Republicans to shape the debate.
People for the American Way will sponsor ads and a massive campaign to dig into Mr. Trump’s nominee, said Executive Vice President Marge Baker.
She said given Mr. Trump’s early spate of actions, the Supreme Court could be a crucial backstop — and the next justice could sway the bench.
“I think particularly right now in light of the discriminatory executive orders that were issued over the weekend and announced plans to do a voter fraud investigation, it’s becoming imminently clear how important it is that we have an open, fair-minded, independent jurist in this position,” she said.
She is planning a rally at the Supreme Court on Tuesday night as soon as the nominee is announced.
Constitutional Accountability Center spokesman Doug Pennington said his group is “gearing up like everyone else,” preparing op-eds and planning to coordinate with its allies to oppose Mr. Trump’s nominee.
Some Democrats in the Senate are already signaling that they will attempt a filibuster to block whomever the president chooses.
Under Senate rules, it will take 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and hold a confirmation vote. A Trump pick would need to hold all 52 Republicans and earn the support of at least eight Democrats.
However, there has been rumbling that Republicans may one-up the Democrats by eliminating outright the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, a couple of years after Harry Reid, as Senate majority leader, eliminated it for lesser federal court picks.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who led the fight to eviscerate the filibuster four years ago, now says he is preparing to use the tool as retaliation for how Republicans treated Judge Garland.
“This is a stolen seat,” he told Politico on Monday.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said voters are expecting better behavior.
“That just shows you that it’s all about politics; it’s not about qualification,” said Mr. Spicer. “The president has a right to have his nominees taken up.”
Concerned Women for America said it will spend $200,000 on the confirmations of Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions and the next high court pick, while Tea Party Patriots said it is preparing to hold 1,000 house parties across the country over the next 100 days to get voters up to speed on Mr. Trump’s pick.
“We’re asking them to call their senators, write letters to the editor, write letters to their family and friends, ask constituents in key states to make phone calls to their senators, hold sign-waving events, sign petitions,” said co-founder Jenny Beth Martin.
Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning told The Washington Times that if Mr. Trump picks “a strong legal constitutional constructionist,” his group is ready to rally its supporters to back the nominee.
Mr. Trump said his pick came from the list of 21 names he released during the campaign. Three names reportedly rose to the top in the final days: Judges William Pryor, Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman.
Conservative groups are preparing to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy if they throw up roadblocks. America Rising Squared has a 90-second video showing statements made by Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer of New York and other leading Democrats arguing for an up-or-down vote on Judge Garland.
“Democrats may try and run, but they can’t hide from their records — all we have to do is roll the tape,” said Brian Rogers, executive director of America Rising.
Surrounded by a group of small-business leaders on Monday, Mr. Trump said his Supreme Court nominee is a “person who is unbelievably highly respected, and I think you will be very impressed with this person.”
• S.A. Miller contributed to this report.

Stick To YOUR List, Mr. President

Image result for Stick to your list, Mr. President trump


President Trump might not have won the Nov. 8 election had he not published a list of conservative judges from which he promised to pick his nominee to the Supreme Court.
There is no sign that the president, who will make his nomination Tuesday evening, is having second thoughts. But if, for the sake of showmanship or anything else, he is tempted to make a surprise pick, he should suppress that feeling at all costs. The list is a talisman among conservative and Republican voters, and a test of the value of the president's word and his ideological seriousness. If he does not pick from the list it will cost him a permanent loss of support and gain him the enmity of people he needs over the next four years.
The single-most important factor prompting people to vote for Trump (27 percent in one NBC exit poll) was that he would make the right choice for the court. In conservative and especially social conservative circles, the court was the central reason they lined up behind Trump, who lacked bonafides as an opponent of abortion.
His reluctant conservative backers essentially thought this: Trump isn't one of us, but he, unlike Hillary, will put a few of us on the Supreme Court. Those conservatives who rejected that line of thought and stayed in the #NeverTrump camp were, often, those who argued that he could not be trusted to stick to his list. At one point early in his run, Trump even named his sister, liberal judge Elizabeth Trump Grau, as a potential nominee.
That's why the list of 21 judges was a masterstroke in the campaign, dangling a yearned-for outcome before the eyes of doubters and prompted them to set aside their skepticism and pull the lever for the GOP nominee. Conservative voters who distrusted Trump for his big spending, his character, and his demeanor, swallowed hard and backed him to save the courts.
Without new conservatives on the high court, Hobby Lobby could be overturned, smashing conscience protections for anyone who deviates from the moral code of the secular elite. Without new conservatives on the Supreme Court, liberals could gut Heller, blasting a hole in the Second Amendment. The First Amendment wouldn't be safe. Roe v. Wade would be preserved and expanded.
Those dangers are reason to harbor concerns right up until the moment that a good nominee is named. But are there more specific reasons for worry?
One is that Trump is a showman, and he likes surprises. He has also shown himself to be persuadable. Whilst he has shown himself resilient in the face of a barrage of attacks over his immigration executive order, he is also a deal maker. There must be a slight temptation to pick a Supreme Court justice who would be a pleasant surprise to Democrats rather than stoking their outrage. Trump is probably made of sterner stuff; we certainly hope so.

Democrats are making noises that they will filibuster any GOP nominee. They want revenge for Republicans' blocking President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. But that's just the latest justification for a policy of filibustering GOP nominees that has been standard Democratic practice since President Clinton left office.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., now minority leader, spearheaded the Democrats' push in the Bush years to expand filibusters of lower-court nominees. All of the most prominent Democrats, including Schumer, and then-senators Barack ObamaHillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and John Kerry, voted to filibuster Sam Alito.
Nothing will unify the right better than a fight against hypocritical obstructionist Democrats with abortion, religious liberty, free speech, and the Second Amendment at stake.
Donald Trump has had political success by being unpredictable. Now is not the time, and the Supreme Court is not the issue, to give the country any more surprises.

Exclusive: Administration to ALLOW 872 Refugees Into U.S. This Week

Chicago area immigration attorney Diana Mendoza Pacheco offers her assistance to arriving passengers at O'Hare airport in Chicago.  REUTERS/Kamil Krzaczynski

Julia Edwards Ainsley

The U.S. government has granted waivers to let 872 refugees into the country this week, despite President Donald Trump's executive order on Friday temporarily banning entry of refugees from any country, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security document seen by Reuters.

A Homeland Security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the waivers, noting that the refugees were considered "in transit" and had already been cleared for resettlement before the ban took effect.

Refugees preparing for resettlement typically have severed personal ties and relinquished their possessions, leaving them particularly vulnerable if their plans to depart are suddenly canceled.

The waivers, granted by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), came amid international protests against Trump's rushed executive order. Critics said the order in some cases was not clearly communicated to the agencies responsible for implementing it.

It was not known if additional waivers would be granted, the official said. The document did not give the nationalities of the refugees who will be admitted into the United States.

Over the weekend, non-refugee visitors from seven majority-Muslim countries also targeted in Trump's executive order were detained, deported and in some cases blocked from boarding flights to the United States.

The countries covered by the traveler ban were Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen.

The internal DHS document said that between late Friday and early Monday 348 visa holders were prevented from boarding U.S.-bound flights. In addition, more than 200 people landed in the United States but were denied entry, the document showed.

More than 735 people were pulled aside for questioning by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in airports, including 394 legal permanent U.S. residents holding green cards, over the same time period.

Trump said the executive order he signed on Friday was designed to protect the United States "from foreign terrorist entry."

The order stopped all refugee admissions for 120 days while government officials determine how to ensure that any refugees admitted do not pose a threat.

The 872 refugees to be admitted this week, under the waivers, were screened using Obama administration procedures, which typically take two years and include several interviews and a background check.

The DHS said on Sunday night that green card holders would be allowed to board U.S.-bound flights, but would be subjected to additional scrutiny upon arrival.

The public guidance from DHS also said some people from the seven majority-Muslim countries could be allowed entry to the United States on a case-by-case basis.

Congressional Democrats and some foreign countries, including key U.S. allies, put pressure on Trump on Monday over the executive order.

Democratic Senators tried to force a vote on a bill to rescind the order, but were blocked by a Republican lawmaker. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said she had 27 co-sponsors for the legislation. But under Senate rules it takes only one member to prevent a vote, and Republican Senator Tom Cotton blocked consideration of the measure.

The Democrats' leader in the U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer, said he would bring legislation on Monday evening seeking to end the ban, although the measure stood little chance of being passed by the Republican-led Congress.

(Reporting by Julia Edwards Ainsley; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Jonathan Oatis)


Monday, January 30, 2017

Trump FIRES Acting AG Sally Yates

Image result for SHE’S FIRED! Trump ousts acting AG over refusal to defend refugee order
President Donald Trump relieved acting Attorney General Sally Yates of her duties Monday night after she directed Justice Department attorneys not to defend Trump's controversial executive refugee and immigration ban.
Yates, a holdover from the Obama Administration, was replaced as acting attorney general by Dana Boente, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Boente, 62, was sworn in Monday evening. He will lead the Justice Department until Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump's nominee for attorney general, is confirmed by the Senate.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Yates had "betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States." The executive order, which Trump signed Friday, temporarily halted the entire U.S. refugee program and banned all entries from seven Muslim-majority nations for 90 days.
Yates said in a memo earlier Monday that she was "not convinced" that Trump's order was lawful, nor that its defense was consistent with what she described as the department's obligation to "always seek justice and stand for what is right."
"It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme," Spicer said. "It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country."
"I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed," Boente said in the White House statement. "I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected."
Yates' abrupt decision deepened the chaos surrounding Trump's order. The Associated Press reported that at least three top national security officials -- Defense Secretary James Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Rex Tillerson, who is awaiting confirmation to lead the State Department -- have told associates they were not aware of details of directive until around the time Trump signed it. Leading intelligence officials were also left largely in the dark, according to U.S. officials.
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said that despite White House assurances that congressional leaders were consulted, he learned about the order in the media.
The fallout was immediate: Friction between Trump and his top advisers and a rush by the Pentagon to seek exemptions to the policy. The White House approach also sparked an unusually public clash between a president and the civil servants tasked with carrying out his policy.
A large group of American diplomats circulated a memo voicing their opposition to the order,  In a startling combative response, Spicer challenged those opposed to the measure to resign.
"They should either get with the program or they can go," Spicer said.
The blowback underscored Trump's tenuous relationship with his own national security advisers, many of whom he met for the first time during the transition, as well as with the government bureaucracy he now leads. While Trump outlined his plan for temporarily halting entry to the U.S. from countries with terror ties during the campaign, the confusing way in which it finally was crafted stunned some who have joined his team.
Mattis, who stood next to Trump during Friday's signing ceremony, is said to be particularly incensed. A senior U.S. official said Mattis, along with Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford, was aware of the general concept of Trump's order but not the details. Tillerson has told the president's political advisers that he was baffled over not being consulted on the substance of the order.
U.S. officials and others with knowledge of the Cabinet's thinking insisted on anonymity in order to disclose the officials' private views.
Critics dispute the president's assertion that the policy is needed to keep Americans safe, noting that recent acts of extremist violence have been carried out either by U.S. citizens or by individuals whose families weren't from the nations singled out in the order.
The president has privately acknowledged flaws in the rollout, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking. But he's also blamed the media -- his frequent target -- for what he believes are reports exaggerating the dissent and the number of people actually affected.
Trump has also said he believes the voters who carried him to victory support the plan as a necessary step to safeguard the nation. And he's dismissed objectors as attention-seeking rabble-rousers and grandstanding politicians.
After a chaotic weekend during which some U.S. legal permanent residents were detained at airports, some agencies were moving swiftly to try to clean up after the White House.
Homeland Security, the agency tasked with implementing much of the refugee ban, clarified that customs and border agents should allow legal residents to enter the country. The Pentagon was trying to exempt Iraqis who worked alongside the U.S. and coalition forces from the 90-day ban on entry from the predominantly Muslim countries.
"There are a number of people in Iraq who have worked for us in a partnership role, whether fighting alongside us or working as translators, often doing so at great peril to themselves," said Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.
Policies with such broad reach are typically vetted by affected agencies and subject to review by multiple agencies. It's a process that can be frustratingly slow but is aimed at avoiding unintended consequences.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers in Trump's party sought to distance themselves from the wide-ranging order.
While Spicer said "appropriate committees and leadership offices" on Capitol Hill were consulted, GOP lawmakers said their offices had no hand in drafting the order and no briefings from the White House on how it would work.
"I think they know that it could have been done in a better way," Corker said of the White House.
The executive order was largely crafted by Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, and Stephen Miller, a young policy adviser and former congressional aide to Trump's pick for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions. Spicer insisted the advisers had kept departments "in the loop at the level necessary," but he sidestepped questions about whether Cabinet secretaries were directly involved in the process.
Some Trump supporters defended the president, saying his actions should not have come as a surprise given his positions during the campaign.
"Nothing he did over the weekend was new," said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and an informal adviser. He conceded that coordination could have been better, but he said Trump's vow to quickly bring change to Washington will sometimes mean he needs to prioritize fast action over broad consultation.
"If you're the reformer, you need the momentum," Gingrich said.
Fox News' Matt Dean and the Associated Press contributed to this report


Image result for No borders. No nations. No clue.

John Moody

Do you lock your front door at night? Hater!
Do you have an alarm system at your house? Xenophobe!
Do you ask who’s ringing your doorbell before letting a visitor in? Rotten bigot!
That, essentially, is the reaction from the politically charged left to President Trump’s executive order about admitting people from certain countries into the United States. The unhinged outrage from Trump-haters – and there are a lot of them – puts the interests of non-Americans over the security of our citizens. And the administration’s botched roll-out of the new restrictions gave opponents just the excuse they needed to bellow.
Reduce the argument to a personal level. A homeowner is permitted to refuse entry to anyone he or she doesn’t want in, right? Security systems are intended to keep unwanted visitors out and let the homeowner know who is outside. Lots of apartment dwellers have an intercom that rings when someone outside wants to visit. Are those precautions divisive, discriminatory or unconstitutional?
One of the most horrifying placards I saw during the protests on Trump’s inauguration day read: “No borders. No nations.” Really? Let anyone go anywhere without asking who they are, why they want to come here and what their past actions tell us about them? The notion that America must be open to anyone who decides to visit flies in the face of 21st century reality.
How do other countries vet visitors? China requires potential guests to fill out a four-page application that asks, among other things, the reason for your visit, the names of your close relatives and what they do, the person who will pay for your trip, your passport number, how long you plan to stay and if you have ever been denied a visa for China in the past? How would the protesters outside American airports react to that kind of quizzing? China doesn't bother with pretending a democracy, so protests are few and far between.
Iran, another country that likes to know who’s coming across its borders, asks most of the same questions as China, as well as “Have you ever been infected by any contagious diseases?” and who you plan to meet with in Iran.
Saudi Arabia gets right to the point, telling female travelers that they cannot enter the country without a male relative accompanying them. Yet Saudi airports have no one outside screeching about their rights.
And a handful of Muslim-majority countries won’t admit anyone who has an Israeli visa in his or her passport.
The United States allows a great deal of leeway for protest and disagreement. Those who disagree with the president’s executive order have taken full advantage of those rights, and rightly so. But their argument that the United States, alone among all countries, cannot restrict who comes in from beyond its shores is, quite simply, specious.
The protests against anything this president does will continue, and that’s fine as long as they’re peaceful. But let’s at least admit that they are not about the issues, but the issuer-in-chief.