Executive orders and airport protests: Trump clashes with the CIA

A person who was at one of these airports when protesters began arriving, interacted with a number of them and asked what they were protesting. They replied, “Immigration”. When further questioned, “What about immigration are you protesting?”, they didn’t know.
The section on the airport protests below is particularly important.
Global Research, February 07, 2017
New Eastern Outlook 6 February 2017

Trump signed an executive order. Airports filled up with protesters. The media screamed about a Muslim ban. Federal Judges intervened. Anger and chaos erupted.

What is actually going on? The answers from both sides of the political spectrum are loaded with emotion and lacking truthful content.

“Trump is trying to protect us from terrorists! He’s keeping the Muslims out of our country!” shout Trump’s defenders. Well, no terrorist attack on US soil has ever been carried out by anyone from the 7 countries restricted. The countries that have been linked to recent terrorist attacks, such as Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, are not included.

“Trump is a racist! He’s banning Muslims! We can’t block people because of their religion!” Scream the liberal protesters. Well, many Muslim majority countries such as Turkey and Indonesia are not included in the ban. Furthermore, the ban applies to all people from these countries, not just Muslims. The Syrian Arab Republic, for example, is home to many Christians, Druze, and even a small Jewish community. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a large population of Armenian Christians, Jews, and many adherents to an ancient faith called Zoroastrianism. All of these non-Muslims are also subject to the ban.

One contributing factor to the outburst of rage is the crass, sudden, “slap in the face” nature of the executive order. Until the administration backed down, even green-card holding permanent residents were being turned away at airports, something that definitely caused anguish and panic among many people.

Calling It A “Muslim Ban” – Good for Trump & the Democrats

Throughout his Presidential election campaign, Trump repeatedly appealed to contempt and distrust of those who practice Islam. He talked about “banning Muslims” from entering the USA. His speech to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee included a lot of pandering to Anti-Islamic sentiments. Millions of working class people in rural and suburban areas voted for Trump, because of these very statements. In the aftermath of 9/11 many Americans have come to see all adherents of the Islamic faith as a single scary, foreign, violent group.

The idea that Trump would enact a “Muslim ban” is something that will increase, not decrease his credibility to millions of the middle aged right-wing working class whites who voted for him in rustbelt and southern states. It plays into Trump’s well crafted image as a bold defender of the common man, who is not politically correct, and unafraid of being scorned by elitist urban liberals.

However, as much as it would please his right-wing, anti-Islamic base, and as much as his opponents proclaim it in condemnation, the reality is that Trump has not enacted a Muslim ban. Donald Trump has temporarily suspended entrance to the United States from seven countries: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Sudan. Now the US public is having a heated argument about a “Muslim Ban.” Opponents call it bigoted, supporters call it bold, and neither side acknowledges reality.

Observers of American politics should be reminded of the healthcare debate in the early years of the Obama administration. The Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare” was not universal healthcare or socialized medicine, and did very little to change the country’s private healthcare system. However, the right-wing rallied against it, proclaiming it was socialism, and the left rallied in its defense, employing socialistic rhetoric. Both sides of the American political spectrum clashed with each other, accepting a similar fictional narrative about the Affordable Care Act.

The Non-Spontaneous Airport Protests

After this sudden action, much like the healthcare debate, “the gloves have come off.” In 2009, Tea Partiers responded to the Affordable Care Act by displaying firearms at townhall meetings and engaging in other acts of protest that are normally considered “out of bounds.” In response to Trump, the Democratic Party apparatus mobilized its supporters to protest inside of airports. The demonstrations were mobilized very rapidly, and got intense with people being arrested, and maced with pepper spray at various locations.

Those who pretend that the protests were completely random, unplanned, or spontaneous are completely delusional. Airports are among the most free speech restricted locations in the country. While decades ago it was permitted to pass out political leaflets or petition at airports, courts long ago forbid such things. Under normal circumstances it is illegal, not only to engage in protest or “public disturbance” at an airport, but even to video record inside one.

Yet, without any widespread public announcement or organizing, thousands of Democratic Party activists flooded into airports for some rather rowdy protests. Under normal circumstances doing such things would result in immediate arrest and perhaps even terrorism charges. Not only did the police not arrest the initial protesters, but they allowed the demonstrations to grow bigger and bigger. Though videotaping is not permitted in airports, live streaming videos found their way on to social media, and TV news cameras conveniently found their way in as well.

In many countries when the elected government is toppled by the military, one of the first actions taken is seizing the airports. One could even read into the sudden mobilizations, clearly supported by some of the most powerful people in Democratic Party, a veiled threat of a military coup d’etat.

The CIA Strikes Back

But why was there such a swift response to Trump’s action? Why did the Democratic Party unleash its forces so rapidly in response to Trump’s move? Are the Democrats like Hillary Clinton, who tweeted in support of the protests, simply humanitarians who hold deep compassion for immigrants?

Continue reading

Soros-funded orgs, including MoveOn, among groups calling for anti-Trump protests after election

From RT

November 16, 2016

Some of the anti-Trump protests in the US have been organized by groups that were sponsored by Clinton sympathizer and billionaire George Soros.

MoveOn.org issued a press release on Wednesday afternoon about the protests where they wrote “hundreds of Americans, dozens of organizations to gather peacefully outside the White House and in cities and towns nationwide to take a continued stand against misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.”

“Tonight, thousands of Americans will come together at hundreds of peaceful gatherings in cities and towns across the nation, including outside the White House, following the results of Tuesday’s presidential election.”

“The gatherings—organized by MoveOn.org and allies—will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible,” the statement continued.

“Those that are stirring it up, and many of them do work for Soros-fronted organizations are really telling those innocent protesters, and perhaps less innocent protesters, they are in danger by Trump, even though Trump has done nothing but preach unity since he won the election,” Marko Gasic, a British-Serbian political commentator told RT on Friday.

The global elite’s objections to in President-elect Donald Trump is perhaps different from what they are telling protesters, Gasic said.

“It’s an election where they had all of the media, power and money and yet they’ve lost to him,” said Gasic. “It’s a toss-up now between the Clinton-Soros view that the only democracy allowed is a one party democracy that agrees with what they say and if that doesn’t happen they are ready to do a counter-revolution to destroy that democracy and that democratic vote.”

However, Gasic doesn’t think they would try to get rid of Trump.

“But they want to intimidate him to get him to agree to social peace at home as long as the global elites are allowed to pursue their wars abroad. They want him to become a neocon just like they are,” he added.

Since Trump won on Tuesday, protests have occurred out in cities across the US, all of which are Democratic strongholds. There have been three nights of protests, with more planned for Friday night and many slated for the weekend.

At a rally in Portland attended by more than 4,000 people on Thursday night, police declared it a riot and fired tear gas and rubber bullets at the crowd after claiming they were attacked by protesters. They arrested 26 people.

Leading Democratic funders in California have started a campaign calling to reject the election results, arguing it was not consistent with the state’s values.

Gasic believes someone is “stirring the pot” because “America has never traditionally had a problem with accepting the outcome of an election.”

“We now have Soros behind many ‘color’ revolutions in other countries and financing in effect a semi-color revolution in US,” Gasic told RT, a reference to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, among others. “I don’t know if it categorizes as treason. He certainly operates from the shadows. His only legitimacy is his wallet. His only concern is to create the kind of democracy he can prop up and gain an interest from. That’s the kind of person who is behind this continuing protest against a valid, legitimate, free election.”

-funded ‘superlawyer’ challenges voter ID laws to ‘protect the Obama coalition’ http://on.rt.com/7m46