Posts Tagged ‘Travel Ban’

Supreme Court Reinstates Trump’s Travel Ban…Again…Saving Us From This Generation’s Neville Chamberlains – A KJ Analysis

September 12, 2017

untitled (176) 

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants, non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate,”- 8 U.S. Code § 1182 

As was reported on www.SpartaReport.com yesterday, the Supreme Court has overturned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stay of President Trump’s Travel Ban…again.

According to TheHill.com,

The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily lift restrictions on the president’s travel ban. 

In a one-page order signed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court temporarily blocked the part of last week’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that barred the government from prohibiting refugees that have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program from entering the U.S.

Kennedy said that part of the decision is stayed pending the receipt of a response from the state of Hawaii. That response that is due by noon on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court’s decision came less than two hours after Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall filed a request for a stay.

In its opinion last week, the 9th Circuit also blocked the government from banning grandparents, aunts, uncles and other extended family members of a person in the U.S. from entering the country.

But the administration said it decided not to fight the “close-family aspect of the district court’s modified injunction.”

Wall said in his request to the court that that part of the ruling was “less stark” than the nullification of the order’s refugee provision.

“Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any freestanding connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies’ assurance agreement with the government,” Wall wrote.

“Nor can the exclusion of an assured refugee plausibly be thought to ‘burden’ a resettlement agency in the relevant sense.”

The court was forced to act fast, given that the 9th Circuit decision was set to take effect at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday.

Wall argued that allowing the 9th Circuit’s ruling to go forward would force the government to “change course” on orders it began implementing on June 29 and invite “precisely the type of uncertainty and confusion that the government has worked diligently to avoid.”

The Supreme Court handed Trump a partial win in June when it allowed theadministration to temporarily block people from six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. But the court carved out an exemption for people with a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the country.

The federal district court judge in Hawaii who blocked Trump’s order in March further weakened it in July by including grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the U.S and refugees working with resettlement agencies in the definition of what constitutes a bona fide relationship.

The Trump administration’s travel ban blocks travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the U.S. for 90 days.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that have been consolidated challenging the ban on Oct. 10.

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in the following Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with others, such as Liberal Politicians in Congress, that Americans need to be afraid.

From The Federalist #78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-power Political Party, to sabotage a president trying to protect American Citizens?

The repeated, desperate actions taken by the Liberal-led 9th Circuit Court of Appeals proves that Liberals are more concerned about their politics than they are the safety of our nation.

And, you know what is so stupid about this whole fiasco?

The list of countries which Trump wishes to temporarily suspend immigration from , was originally compiled by the Obama Administration, as a list of countries in which “Radical Islam” (although they probably did not call it, that) is growing exponentially.

And, another thing…I asked a couple of Liberals, when the ruling was announced, if they were taking these refugees into their homes…especially the 20 something year old military-looking ones with cellphones, which were so prevalently seen in the pictures of the “Muslim Migration” that swept across Europe.

Of course, all I received was the sound of crickets in return.

In the past, Liberals have made an art form out of circumventing the will of the American people by taking things before Liberal Judicial Activists.

However, this time is not about allowing two hairy-legged gents to roll around under the sheets together and label it a “marriage” in the name of “love”.

This time, it is about allowing those who want to kill us to come into our Sovereign Nation without being properly vetted.

Are “The Smartest People in the Room” so contrary, as to not realize that Radical Islam punishes every single social issue that American Liberals so “righteously” defend in this nation?

The maddening thing is that every time you challenge Liberals on this fact, they try to equate Radical Islam with American Christianity.

Frankly, the ignorance of these young Liberals blows my mind.

As a Lifeway Survey taken in 2014  showed, older Americans, such as myself, actually see Radical Islam and Sharia law for what it is.

Why is that?

I believe that it is because of the old adage,

With age comes wisdom.

Older Americans can remember when the Shah of Iran was deposed and the Radical Mullahs took over the nation, holding Americans hostage, under the ineffectual American President Jimmy Carter, for 144 days.

The only reason that those hostages were not killed and were let go, was the inauguration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The only thing that these barbarians fear is strength, as the leader of Jordan has recently demonstrated.

Older Americans were raised differently than this current generation, for the most part. We were raised to understand Christianity’s place, as the stitching, in the fabric of our nation.

As I have written before, American Christianity is a legacy which our fathers and their fathers, bequeathed to us, along with the courage to stand up for our beliefs.

Our Founding Documents and our System of Law are based on our Judeo-Christian Beliefs.

This latest generation, seems to be more interested in giving Dress-wearing Johnny his perceived “Constitutional Right” to “drop trou” in the company of our wives, daughters, and daughters-in-law in public and school restrooms and locker rooms, or crying and crawling up into a ball in their “safe spaces” or violently protesting in public, when they don’t get their way like a bunch of 3-years olds in Walmart who are told that they can not have a toy they want, than they are about what is actually happening in our nation as related to our Sovereignty and our very lives.

This generation’s predilection for situational ethics, relative morality, and all-encompassing political correctness, is reminiscent of the cattle who are led up the ramp to the slaughter house.

They go through their lives, content in their ignorance, until the blade falls.

Neville Chamberlain would be so proud of the Modern American Liberal Judicial Activists that comprise the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Modern American Liberals who cheer them on.

Unfortunately, this is the generation that we are leaving our country to.

It is time for them to wake up, grow up, and stand up…before it’s too late.

I. for one, am very glad that we now have a President who is not afraid to say the words “Radical Islam” in front of the world or to hire men who will stand up for our Sovereign Nation in the face of it.

As we were so hauntingly reminded yesterday,

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Advertisements

More WINNING: The Supreme Court Gives the Go-Ahead For President Trump’s Travel Ban.

June 27, 2017

wall-breakthrough_large

The Thunderclap that was heard from “sea to shining sea” yesterday morning was Liberal Sphincters slamming together in unison over the ruling by the Highest Court in the Land on President Trump’s “Travel Ban”.

Foxnews.com reported that

After successive rulings by numerous federal courts against President Trump’s controversial travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered what Trump is touting as a clear victory – allowing most of the policy to be enforced and teeing up a high-stakes court battle for the fall in which the administration may have the upper hand.
 
Monday’s ruling effectively allows part of Trump’s executive order to go into effect, including a 90-day ban on people entering the United States from six mostly-Muslim countries who “lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” such as a spouse, close relative, employer or enrollment in an American university.

It also allows a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to go into effect.

The ruling, though, sets up further litigation in the courts over the coming weeks on just how far the “bona fide” exemptions can go and whether emergency exceptions will be granted.

“I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote. “The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a ‘credible claim’ to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid §2(c)’ of Executive Order No. 13780.”

Reaz Jafri, head of the global immigration practice at Withers Bergman law firm, told Fox News he expects a significant uptick in cases and protests. Jafri advises clients on how to navigate the U.S.’s changes in immigration policies.

 
“It is still unclear if a national from one of the banned countries will get a visa to visit a family member, participate in a conference, visit schools or come for a job interview,” Jafri said. “Will these be considered bona fide reasons to visit the U.S.? My sense is ‘no’ and the implication is that U.S. businesses, universities and families will be negatively impacted.”

All nine justices agreed in the 13-page decision to take up the case in the fall, setting up a showdown over the legality of the order.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito Jr. and Thomas wrote a three-page opinion saying they would have allowed Trump’s travel ban to take effect fully, without regard to a foreign national’s connection to the United States. Their dissent could foreshadow a tough road ahead for opponents of the travel ban.

The justices agreed to hear oral arguments on the merits of the executive order – whether the ban is lawful or exceeds the president’s powers – during the Court’s next term, which begins in October.  

Though Monday’s decision wasn’t the final word on the travel ban, Trump touted it as “a clear victory for our national security.”

“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” he said in a written statement. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

Trump has been incensed since his original executive order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.

“What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?” Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.

He added on Feb. 11: “Our legal system is broken!”

In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order — which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.

Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take up the case and eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as more liberal appellate judges.

Four days after signing the original ban, Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Antonin Scalia died.

Gorsuch, who has since been confirmed, is largely seen as a conservative, originalist justice in the Scalia mold and could help Trump claim an even more definitive victory after arguments.

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, called the travel ban unconstitutional, saying, “Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down.”

First off, the act of immigrating to America is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

It is a privilege extended to those who request it legally and who possess the documentation and pass the background requirements that ensure the safety of our citizenry and the continued sovereignty of our nation.

Frankly…why should we allow people into our country who want to kill us?

What about other Presidents? How did they feel about “multi-culturalism” and allowing people in who do not like us?

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” – Theodore Roosevelt

The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed because America had experienced an overwhelming flood of immigrants, which strained the resources of our nation.

That act allowed all of those immigrants to be assimilated into American Society and to actually become Americans, in thought, word, deed, and LOYALTY.

Later, Liberal President Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating, because, just like the situation we faced today with Radical Islam, we were AT WAR.

In fact, Obama and his Administration were themselves actually restrictive in whom they allowed to immigrate to America, refusing the entry of Middle Eastern Christians, who were and are attempting to escape from certain death at the hands of Radical Islamists.

The Godfather of Conservative Radio Talk Show Programing, Rush Limbaugh, was on at the time of this historical ruling. According to Maha Rushie,

There was never any doubt that this travel ban was constitutional. The very federal statute that exists, we read it to you I don’t know how many times, Trump totally satisfied it with this travel ban. The only reason to stop this was political hacks that have been appointed to the judiciary by Obama and other Democrat presidents. And they were simply implementing personal political policy preferences to stop the travel ban rather than looking at is as a matter of law.

It was only a matter of time, folks. I never doubted this. When the Supreme Court saw this, the law is the law, the statute’s the statute. And the Supreme Court was gonna slap this down in no time, and it did. Now, the fact that they’re gonna hear it formally in October doesn’t mean that they’re gonna overturn it. It means they want to probably officially hear this thing and give it the official stamp of approval once it’s all said and done, because this is explicitly about the Constitution and separation of powers. And the judicial branch was way overstepping here for personal political policy reasons on the part of all the judges who decided this. Unanimous.

The only reason that the Democrat Elite are mad about Donald J. Trump restricting the immigration of those who would kill us, is that he is thwarting their plans to rapidly import thousands of un-vetted Muslims, whom they view as potential Democrat Voters, into our country.

And, the Democrats who run Hawaii are worried about their Tourism Industry.

Aloha! Would you like a lei to go along with that bomb?

They could care less about the results of their avarice.

Like all Liberals, they remain oblivious of their own callous hypocrisy.

As was attempted  by taking the Travel Ban before two separate Appeals Courts, Liberals have made an art form out of circumventing the will of the American people by taking things before Liberal Judicial Activists.

However, this time is not about allowing two hairy-legged gents to roll around under the sheets together and label it a “marriage” in the name of “love”.

This time, it is about allowing those who want to kill us to come into our Sovereign Nation without being properly vetted.

They should be grateful to President Trump.

While performing the duties of his job , which, as he said, includes ensuring the safety of the American People…

He is saving the Democrats from themselves.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Activist Judge Blocks Second Trump Travel Ban: Why It is an Overreach

March 16, 2017

travel-ban

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants, non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate,”- 8 U.S. Code § 1182 

If you had been out of the country for a while and then came back, you would think that the role of America’s Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, had changed from ruling on the law of the land to usurping the Constitutionally-granted Authority of the President of the United States of America.

And, you would be RIGHT.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Trump’s revised travel ban was put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge in Hawaii just hours before it was set to take effect after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the basis of nationality.

Trump addressed the judge’s move during a rally in Nashville, Tennessee calling it “unprecedented judicial overreach” and vowed to fight.

“We’re going to win. We’re going to keep our citizens safe,” Trump said. “The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear.”

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson prevents the executive order from going into effect, at least for now. Hawaii had requested a temporary restraining order.

“Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this Court,” Watson wrote in his ruling. 

In a statement released late Wednesday night the Department of Justice said they strongly disagreed with the ruling and called the move “flawed both in reasoning and scope.”

“The President’s Executive Order falls squarely within his lawful authority in seeking to protect our Nation’s security, and the Department will continue to defend this Executive Order in the courts,” said DOJ Spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores.

The ruling came as opponents renewed their legal challenges across the country, asking judges in three states to block the executive order that targets people from six predominantly Muslim countries.

More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments about whether it should be put into practice early Thursday.

Hawaii also argued to the court that the ban would prevent residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six countries covered by the order. The state says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

Senator Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, welcomed the ruling and said “Judge Watson exemplifies the importance of an independent judiciary.”

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called the travel ban “bad policy” and praised Attorney General Doug Chin for stopping the order.

In Maryland, attorneys told a federal judge that the measure still discriminates against Muslims.

Government attorneys argued that the ban was revised substantially to address legal concerns, including the removal of an exemption for religious minorities from the affected countries.

“It doesn’t say anything about religion. It doesn’t draw any religious distinctions,” Jeffrey Wall, who argued for the Justice Department, said in court.

Attorneys for the ACLU and other groups said that Trump’s statements on the campaign trail and statements from his advisers since he took office make clear that the intent of the ban is to ban Muslims.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called the order “yet another victory.” 

“President Trump’s second executive order is just a Muslim Ban by another name – with the same unlawful and unconstitutional goal of discriminating based on religion and national origin,” he said in a statement.

Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller has previously said the revised order was designed to have “the same basic policy outcome” as the first.

The latest version of the ban details more of a national security rationale. It is narrower and eases some concerns about violating the due-process rights of travelers, appyling only to new visas from Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. It does not apply to travelers who already have visas.

“Generally, courts defer on national security to the government,” said U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang. “Do I need to conclude that the national security purpose is a sham and false?”

In response, ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat pointed to Miller’s statement and said the government had put out misleading and contradictory information about whether banning travel from six specific countries would make the nation safer.

The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it’s against federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with nowhere else to go.

In the Hawaii case, the federal government said there was no need to issue an emergency restraining order because Hawaii officials offered only “generalized allegations” of harm.

Jeffrey Wall of the Office of the Solicitor General challenged Hawaii’s claim that the order violates due-process rights of Ismail Elshikh as a U.S. citizen who wants his mother-in-law to visit his family from Syria. He says courts have not extended due-process rights outside of a spousal relationship.

Neal Katyal, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing Hawaii, called the story of Elshiskh, an Egyptian immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen, “the story of America.”

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in the following Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with others, such as Liberal Politicians in Congress, that Americans need to be afraid.

From The Federalist #78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-power Political Party, to sabotage a president trying to protect American Citizens?

Why should we allow people into our country who want to kill us?

What about other Presidents? How did they feel about “multi-culturalism” and allowing people in who do not like us?

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” – Theodore Roosevelt,

The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed because America had experienced an overwhelming flood of immigrants, which strained the resources of our nation.

That act allowed all of those immigrants to be assimilated into American Society and to actually become Americans, in thought, word, deed, and LOYALTY.

Later, Liberal President Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating, because, just like the situation we faced today with Radical Islam, we were AT WAR.

In fact, Obama and his Administration were themselves actually restrictive in whom they allowed to immigrate to America., refusing the entry of Middle Eastern Christians, who were and are attempting to escape from certain death at the hands of Radical Islamists.

The only reason that the Democrat Elite are mad at Donald J. Trump’s Proposal to restrict the immigration of those who would kill us, is that he is attempting to thwart their plans to rapidly import thousands of un-vetted Muslims, and potential Democrat Voter into our country.

And, the Democrats who run Hawaii are worried about their Tourism Industry.

Aloha! Would you like a lei to go along with that bomb?

They could care less about the results of their avarice.

Like all Liberals, they remain oblivious of their own callous hypocrisy.

In the past, Liberals have made an art form out of circumventing the will of the American people by taking things before Liberal Judicial Activists.

However, this time is not about allowing two hairy-legged gents to roll around under the sheets together and label it a “marriage” in the name of “love”.

This time, it is about allowing those who want to kill us to come into our Sovereign Nation without being properly vetted.

They should be grateful to President Trump.

The Democrats are trying to commit mass seppuku, with the rest of us included, and Trump is trying to take the knives out of their hands.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Will Trump Write a New Immigration EO? He Should. Research Proves That He Was Right and the 9th Circus…err…Circuit Was Wrong.

February 13, 2017

9th-circuit-600-li

“We have to listen to the concerns that working people have over the record pace of immigration and its impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills, and living conditions. These are valid concerns, expressed by decent and patriotic citizens from all backgrounds.

“We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.” – Donald J. Trump, August 31, 2016

Foxnews.com reports that

President Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller said Sunday that the White House is “considering and pursuing all options” to impose an immigration travel ban, now that Trump’s executive order on the issue has been halted in federal court.

Miller, an immigration hawk, told “Fox News Sunday” that new executive orders to protect Americans from “hostile” intruders are under consideration, as are potential legal challenges.

“We are contemplating new and additional actions … to ensure our immigration system is not a vehicle for terrorists,” said Miller, who was instrumental in crafting former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions’ policies on illegal immigration. (Sessions is now the U.S. attorney general.)

A federal appeals court recently halted Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order to temporarily ban travel from seven mostly Muslim nations. And the Trump administration’s attempt last week to have the ban lifted was denied.

Miller on Sunday argued the appeal court has overstepped its authority, reasserting the president’s powers and expressing confidence that Trump will prevail in his promise to stop radical Islamic terrorists from entering the United States.

“The three judges made a broad, over-reaching statement,” Miller said. “The president’s powers here are beyond question. … Something good is going to come out of this. The powers of the president will be confirmed.”

In response to assertions that the executive orders were hastily crafted and executed, Miller argued they were drafted by “congressional experts” and reviewed by lawyers and top federal agency officials.

He also argued that the three executive orders on immigration signed last month essentially remain in effect and that they have already “profoundly improved our national security.”

Miller also said that Assistant to the President Steve Bannon, who is considered a driving force behind Trump’s immigration policies, had “no role” in the so-called roll out of the executive orders, which immediately created problems for travelers, including those with green cards, arriving at U.S. airports.

And, Guess what? Trump was right about how dangers those countries are, all along.

According to a report issued by the Center for Immigration Studies this past Saturday,

In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.

The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.

Gosh. A Sovereign Nation who gets to decide who enters their borders. What a novel idea.

Who would have thought of that?

Well…can you say “Founding Fathers”, boys and girls?”

I knew that you could.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other – John Adams

Why should we allow people into our country who want to kill us?

That has to be the dumbest idea anyone has come up with since The Rosie O’ Donnell Variety Show (which lasted one episode).

I’m just sayin’.

What about other Presidents? How did they feel about “multi-culturalism”and allowing people in who do not like us?

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” – Theodore Roosevelt,

The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed because America had experienced an overwhelming flood of immigrants, which strained the resources of our nation.

That act allowed all of those immigrants to be assimilated into American Society and to actually become Americans, in thought, word, deed, and LOYALTY.

Later, Liberal President Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating, because, just like the situation we faced today with Radical Islam, we were AT WAR.

In fact, Obama and his Administration were themselves actually restrictive in whom they allowed to immigrate to America., refusing the entry of Middle Eastern Christians, who were and are attempting to escape from certain death at the hands of Radical Islamists.

The only reason that the Democrat Elite are mad at Donald J. Trump’s Proposal to restrict the immigration of those who would kill us, is that he is attempting to thwart their plans to rapidly import thousands of un-vetted Muslims, and potential Democrat Voter into our country.

They could care less about the results of their avarice.

Like all Liberals, they remain oblivious of their own callous hypocrisy.

They should be grateful to President Trump.

The Democrats are trying to commit mass seppuku, with the rest of us included, and Trump is trying to take the knives out of their hands.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Federal Judge Who Attempted to Freeze Trump Travel Ban is an Obama Appointee. I’m Shocked. Shocked, I Tell You.

January 29, 2017

ann-donnelly-robe

DATELINE: November 20, 2014 (courtesy,whitehouse.gov)

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, President Obama nominated Judge Ann Donnelly, Roseann A. Ketchmark, and Travis Randall McDonough to serve on the United States District Courts.

“These individuals have had distinguished legal careers and I am honored to ask them to serve as judges on the federal bench,” said President Obama.  “They will serve the American people with integrity and an unwavering commitment to justice.”

Judge Ann Donnelly:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Judge Ann Donnelly has served as a Judge of the New York State Court of Claims since 2009. During her tenure, her judicial assignments have included the Bronx County Supreme Court, a Special Term for Election Matters, the Kings County Supreme Court, and the New York County Supreme Court, where she currently serves. From 1984 to 2009, Judge Donnelly was a prosecutor in the New York County District Attorney’s Office, where she served in a number of management positions including Chief of the Family Violence and Child Abuse Bureau from 2005 to 2009 and Senior Trial Counsel from 1997 to 2005. She received her J.D. in 1984 from the Ohio State University College of Law and her B.A. in 1981 from the University of Michigan.

That was then. This is now.

Obama’s chick (enzzz) (to quote Rev. Wright) have just come home…to roost!

The Associated Press reports that

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge issued an emergency order Saturday night temporarily barring the U.S. from deporting people from nations subject to President Donald Trump’s travel ban, saying travelers who had been detained had a strong argument that their legal rights had been violated. U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York issued the emergency order after lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union filed a court petition on behalf of people from seven predominantly Muslim nations who were detained at airports across the country as the ban took effect.

The judge’s order affected only a portion of Trump’s executive action. As the decision was announced, cheers broke out in crowds of demonstrators who had gathered at American airports and outside the Brooklyn courthouse where the ruling was issued.

The order barred U.S. border agents from removing anyone who arrived in the U.S. with a valid visa from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It also covered anyone with an approved refugee application.

It was unclear how quickly the judge’s order might affect people in detention, or whether it would allow others to resume flying.

“Realistically, we don’t even know if people are going to be allowed onto the planes,” said ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt. “This order would protect people who they allow to come here and reach U.S. soil.”

Under Trump’s order, it had appeared that an untold number of foreign-born U.S. residents now traveling outside the U.S. could be stuck overseas for at least 90 days even though they held permanent residency “green cards” or other visas. However, an official with the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday night that no green-card holders from the seven countries cited in Trump’s order had been prevented from entering the U.S.

Some foreign nationals who were allowed to board flights before the order was signed Friday had been detained at U.S. airports, told they were no longer welcome. The DHS official who briefed reporters by phone said 109 people who were in transit on airplanes had been denied entry and 173 had not been allowed to get on their planes overseas.

In her three-page order, Donnelly wrote that without the stay “there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders and other individuals from nations subject to the Jan. 27, 2017, executive order.”

Trump billed his sweeping executive order as a necessary step to stop “radical Islamic terrorists” from coming to the U.S. It included a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen and a 120-day suspension of the U.S. refugee program.

Trump’s order singled out Syrians for the most aggressive ban, indefinitely blocking entry for anyone from that country, including those fleeing civil war.

Why is it that Liberals, like Judge Ann Donnelly, are so dadgum naive about Islam? For example, let’s look for a moment at Barack Hussein Obama, Former (Thank God) President of these United States…

On September 24, 2014, Obama  spoke before the UN General Assembly. Joseph Curl, in an Op Ed for the Washington Times, titled “Obama’s Breathtaking Naivete at the United Nations” wrote,

He asked delegates from nations across the world to mull this “central question of our global age: Whether we will solve our problems together, in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, or whether we descend into the destructive rivalries of the past.”

His answer? “It’s time for a broader negotiation in the region in which major powers address their differences directly, honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than through gun-wielding proxies.”

Simply believing something doesn’t make it so. The president’s desire for a world in which nations talk openly about their true feelings, perhaps share a good cry together, and sing kumbaya around the campfire, is the height of naivete.

So is this passage of his speech: ” … the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them, there is only us.”

But Islam and the holy Koran on which Muslim militant groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State base their actions do call for the extermination of all who do not follow Islam, do demand that followers kill anyone who leaves the religion, do subjugate women. For the record, the Koran contains more than 100 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.

Mr. Obama said in his speech that “all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all great religions: Do unto thy neighbor as you would do — you would have done unto yourself.” But that is not a cornerstone of Islam. Militant Muslims have a very different belief: “Fight in the name of your religion with those who disagree with you.” And that edict comes straight from their holiest book.

To the president, that ideology “will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed and confronted and refuted in the light of day.” Again, the callowness is astounding. While he urged the world, “especially Muslim communities,” to reject the ideology that underlies al Qaeda and the Islamic State, nothing will change the fact that cold-blooded killers are determined to destroy the West, wipe all infidels from the face of the earth and build a new caliphate based on strict adherence to Shariah law (which leans heavily toward beheadings, lashings, stonings).

The president let loose some passing platitudes — “right makes might,” “the only language understood by killers like this is the language of force” — but in the end Mr. Obama still labors under the delusion that the Islamic State group and its ilk have “perverted one of the world’s great religions.” He still rejects “any suggestion of a clash of civilizations” — despite al Qaeda’s and Islamic State’s express declaration of war against western civilization (and anyone who is not Muslim).

An additional irony of Scooter’s speech is, the fact that, under the command of President Barack Hussein Obama, the United States of America has bombed 7 Islamic countries: Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

Awkward.

Obama, like every other Modern American Liberal, truly believes that there is no difference between Islam and any other religion, even Christianity, the religion which the overwhelming majority of the citizens of America, the country which he was supposed to be the advocate for, but instead, was his biggest critic, practices.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 75% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which America’s Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Now, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”.

However…

As I have written before, when Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American citizens.

When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.

And, as the over 3,000 Americans who were savagely murdered on September 11, 2001 would attest to, if they could, these animals do not care your age, sex, or political ideology.

President Donald J. Trump is doing exactly what ,we average Americans, living here in America’s Heartland, asked him to:

He is making America SAFE again.

And, may the God of Our Fathers bless him for it.

Yeah. I said it.

Until He Comes,

KJ