BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” Thursday, April 20th, 2017, with guest White Mamba, Esq.

My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.

Thursday night on the Berserk Bobcat Saloon:

  • BZ interviews The Official Attorney of the Berserk Bobcat Saloon (TOABBS), White Mamba, Esq., concerning sanctuary cities;
  • BZ reviews the First Rule of Holes;
  • To Bill O’Reilly: what the hell, dude? There’s no one to blame but you;
  • BZ reveals his email address: bz@reagan.com;
  • Is the Cold War back again? My father recalls Defcon 1 in the Cuban missile crisis;
  • Kim Jong Un launches the un-rocket; did the US hack the missile system?
  • Did President Trump cut a deal with China’s President Xi Jinping?
  • How did America get so weak? Because of Clinton, Bush and Obama;
  • “Strategic patience”? As effective as “leading from behind”?
  • How Obama duped America into the dangerous and treacherous Iran deal;
  • Reporters: “they literally know nothing”;
  • No campus can cramp us;
  • “The days of Strategic Patience are over”;
  • China sends coal shipments back to North Korea; picks up US coal instead;
  • China may cut crude oil deliveries to North Korea;
  • BZ takes just a wee bit of umbrage with the City of Berkeley Police Department;
  • BZ was proved a lying sack of crap because he didn’t cover half of the topics he promised at the introduction of the show.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” Thursday, April 20th, 2017″ on Spreaker.

Official business card of the White Mamba, Esq.

White Mamba, Esq., is a bar-certified, shingle-hanging practicing attorney in the State of Florida who, as TOABBS, weighs in on heavy legal matters due to his rampant kindness and insightful insight with all things legal. This night he proffered an acumenical perspicacity on the issue of sanctuary cities and the applicable cases therein.

Please note; his telephone number will soon be changing.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast.

Want to listen to the Berserk Bobcat Saloon podcast archives? Go here.

BZ

 

Trump orders Syrian strikes: a post-event analysis

Was President Trump right or was he wrong?

Is this a real war or is this a proxy war?

I see this, initially, as a defensive and not offensive decision on the part of the United States, and I see it as limited in nature.

From NBCNews.com:

U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base Over Chemical Weapons Attack

by Kourtney Kube, Alex Johnson, Hallie Jackson, Alexander Smith

The United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria overnight in response to what it believes was a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 100 people.

At least six people were killed, Syria claimed, but the Pentagon said civilians were not targeted and the strike was aimed at a military airfield in Homs.

All but one of the missiles hit their intended target, one U.S. military official told NBC News. The other missile failed.

The strike completed a policy reversal for President Donald Trump — who once warned America to stay out of the conflict — and drew angry responses from Damascus and its main ally, Russia.

Half truth. Again the American Media Maggots are either purposely misleading you, or are ignorant, or both. Syria has two very important allies: Iran and Russia.

The missiles were launched from the USS Ross and the USS Porter in the Mediterranean Sea toward Shayrat Airfield. American officials believe it was used by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad to carry out a strike on Tuesday involving chemical weapons that resulted in the deaths of more than 100 people.

Tillerson and Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., have bluntly blamed Syria for the chemical weapons attack, whose victims included at least 25 children.

“We have a very high level of confidence that the attacks were carried out by aircraft under the direction of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and we also have very high confidence that the attacks involved the use of sarin nerve gas,” Tillerson said.

This is not an uncomplicated situation and the players are many and ever-changing.

The truth is this: we didn’t necessarily target the airfield; we instead targeted aircraft, their hardened shelters and fueling stations. A point. One Tomahawk malfunctioned and spent itself into the sea. Funny thing: the US Navy wants to stop buying Tomahawks in the next few years (to the tune of $1.4 million dollars each). The USN, by the way, has 4,000 Tomahawk missiles, built by Raytheon.

The confusing aspect of President Trump’s action is its reaction from the Republicans, the Demorats, Trump voters and military analysts. It’s all over the map. Many reactions are not what one would nominally expect.

Some people feel betrayal because President Trump has said he is not the “president of the world.” On the heels of that statement he has intervened in Syria; his first military response.

Not anticipated by me was the response by the American Media Maggots. Many outlets praised the attack.

But wait. Aren’t these the same American Media Maggots who have been screeching from the tallest towers that President Trump was a stooge for Russia and Vladimir Putin? It doesn’t seem to me that Moscow would be pleased with the attack and, of course, it wasn’t. Wait; doesn’t Moscow = Putin?

The AMM said this about those who opposed it:

  • Politico.com called those opposed to the attack “Trump’s troll army” and “racists” and “conspiracy mongers”;
  • The New York Times called oppo members a “small but influential white nationalist movement”;
  • The Washington Post said the attack’s critics hold “racist, anti-Semitic and sexist” views;

Again, I can sum up those articles best by quoting Monty Python: “you’re a loon.”

Speaking of which, as I mentioned, there were those who continued to insist on making the linkage between President Trump and Russia despite the total lack of evidence and subsequent denial from US intelligence agencies. Our good “you’re a loon” buddy Lawrence O’Donnell weighs in with a Moonbat Theory: what if Vladimir Putin planned the Syrian gas attack in order to assist his great friend, President Donald Trump?

Fear not, for we not only have a civilian Trump/Russia conspiracist, but an elected government official as a Trump/Russia conspiracist, Representative Seth Moulton (6th District, Massachusetts) spoke with Tucker Carlson Monday night.

An elected representative saying something like this is akin to Rep Hank Johnson saying that Guam could capsize because of extra weight.

There are those, however, who believe the attack was illegal as no declaration of war was made by Congress. This is patently false. I remind folks of the fact that Obama operated that way for, literally, all eight years of his regime and was never told he required Congressional approval for the drone and missile strikes he ordered. Even Left-leaning PolitiFact stated that Trump had the authority to conduct his strike under Article 2 of the US Constitution.

  • Since the last time Congress declared war, at the beginning of World War II, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without having an official declaration of war in support of their actions.
  • Even under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.
  • Lower courts have ruled in favor of the White House in the use of force, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that po

Some said President Trump should have come before Congress and made his case in public. One thing we do know about Trump is this: he doesn’t much care to advertise coming actions. Logically so, in terms of military strategy.

These are the same people, interestingly enough, who said President Bush’s movement into Iraq was fallacious and that Saddam Hussein was not in possession of WMD materials despite the fact that an article in the New York Times indicated the opposite. An article in PowerLine also supported the conclusion of the Times.

Further, some said that Saddam Hussein moved his WMD materials prior to the invasion and had them transported to Syria. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz believed so in 2003. Somehow I think people now more clearly understand that nexus.

But wait; wasn’t it Susan Rice and John Kerry who unequivocally declared that because of the tireless work they did to eliminate all chemical weapons from Syria under Barack Hussein Obama, “the entirety of the declared stockpile was removed.”

Hmm. It would appear Susan Rice lied about Benghazi. She lied about Bowe Bergdahl, that he had served with “honor and distinction.” She lied about the unmasking of names. And apparently she lied about the chemical stockpile in Syria. Here she is in an NPR interview, January 16th.

I’m of the mindset that if Susan Rice stated the sun would rise in the east tomorrow morning, I’d be suspicious.

Many people consistently bleat that political solutions and diplomatic negotiations must occur when potential conflicts arise. Like the prior administration and its occupants and sycophants. The problem with that theory is that none of it can exist absent military credibility.

The US needed to re-establish military credibility in the Middle East, lost as it was under the previous eight years under Barack Hussein Obama, and Trump demonstrated that credibility with that Syrian strike. He also set forth the doctrine that the words of a US president now have consequences.

John Kerry and Susan Rice under Obama became absolutely convinced that Assad had surrendered all of his chemical weapons which, clearly, he hadn’t. Even PolitiFact has revised and retracted its insistence that the US removed “100%” of Syria’s chemical weapons. The meme then was:

“We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” then-Secretary of State John Kerry said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in July 2014. Kerry was referring to a deal the U.S. and Russia struck in September 2013 in which the Russians agreed to help confiscate and then destroy Syria’s entire chemical weapons stockpile.

Some people are insisting it was a false flag event. Like VA Senator Richard Black.

Further, some are saying rebels are responsible for the attack, not the official Syrian government.

Will President Bashar Al-Assad gas his people again? We know he could, as he clearly has access to chemical agents despite the claim that more than 1,300 to 1,400 tons of it had been eliminated. We also know that Al-Assad’s Syrian military is hurting. He hasn’t much of an air force remaining to speak of, his army pretty much doesn’t exist, and that accounts for his need for mercenaries and conscripts from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq — primarily because Syrians won’t fight for him.

Let’s not forget, however, that Al-Assad does have Iran working for him. He has the support of the Quds force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards corps, Hezbollah and Russia, who stepped into Syria two years ago under the guise of fighting ISIS.

DefenseOne.com had any number of interesting articles on the Syrian missile strike. One of them was “Seven Disturbing Implications of Trump’s Syria Strike” by David Frum of The Atlantic. Ahem. A Left-leaning journal.

  • Trump’s Words Mean Nothing
  • Trump Does Not Give Reasons
  • Trump Does Not Care About Legality
  • Trump Disregards Government Processes
  • Trump Has No Allies
  • Trump Envisions No End State
  • Trump Is Lucky in His Opponents

Concurrently, a contrasting article from The Atlantic by Tom Malinowski stated:

America Should Have Hit Assad Four Years Ago

When dealing with mass killing, deterrence is more effective than disarmament.

Donald Trump is president; he now bears full responsibility for addressing the tragedy in Syria, and for the consequences of the response he has chosen. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reflect on America’s response to the Assad regime’s previous chemical weapons attacks—for how we interpret the difficult and debatable choice the Obama administration (in which I served) made not to use military force when Assad last used nerve gas against his people will shape our thinking about this and similar crises for a long time to come. The lesson I would draw from that experience is that when dealing with mass killing by unconventional or conventional means, deterrence is more effective than disarmament.

An earth-shaking conclusion from a Leftist.

Now let’s get into the weeds. The weeds that need to be examined, and the weeds that western media and the American Media Maggots refuse to appraise.

That of the involvement of the Middle Eastern version of Islam itself. You cannot understand Islam until you understand the two most fundamental divisions in Islam. And why this Islamic quote is accurate:

Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my brother and my cousin against the tribe. Me and my brother and my cousin and my tribe against the outsider.

Let’s state the obvious:

Islam breaks itself down into two distinct camps: Sunni vs Shite.

What are the fundamental yet apparently unrecoverable differences between the two camps?

As clearly explained as I could make. Yet it’s all worth dying for.

Books I continue to highly recommend regarding the Middle Eastern version of Islam, are

One must read what one proclaims to not understand, until there is a grasp of what is extant. Surprises frequently hide in plain sight. So it is with Islam. Weeds, meet reality.

Let me break things down for you in the Middle East, so you can easily understand.

  • Sunni Islam (ISIS) hates Iranians (Shia);
  • Sunni Arabs were responsible for 9/11;
  • Iran = Shia, the largest number of Shiites in the world;
  • Saudi Arabia = mostly Sunni; Shiites are a minority;
  • Syria = mostly Sunni;
  • ISIS = ISIL = Daesh = Sunni = Wahabbist;

Iran is predominantly helping and funding Syria. Iran = Shia and ISIS = Sunni.

It’s ISIS vs Assad.

And the US is fighting both. We are also arming a third force — a “rebel force” — which has ties to al Qaeda.

  • Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is a puppet of Iran. And Russia.
  • Saudi Arabia will not accept giving Damascus (Syria) over to Iran.
  • As long as Assad is in power neither ISIS nor al Qaeda can be destroyed.
  • Assad is backed by Iran and Russia.
  • Russia provides military equipment to Iran. Including missile sites.

I ask again: is the US fighting a proxy war? And for whom? Iran? Saudi Arabia?

Why not simply let Iran (Shiite) and ISIS (Sunni) battle it out?

I repeat:

Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my brother and my cousin against the tribe. Me and my brother and my cousin and my tribe against the outsider.

One could look at it this way: ISIS = Germany and Assad = Japan. They are both Axis powers.

You see how clear and obvious things are now? How the clouds have parted for you?

Or perhaps these issues are even more muddied than before you started reading this post. Entirely possible.

From the NewStatesman.com:

Why Tehran hates Isis: how religious rifts are fueling conflict

The alliance between Iran and Syria might seem an unlikely one. As Iran is an Islamic republic, one might not expect its closest ally to be a dictatorship that grew out of the political doctrine of Baathism, a secular Arab nationalist movement that originated in the 1930s and 1940s. But politics – and perhaps especially the politics of relations between states – develops its own logic, which often has little to do with ideology. Baathism advocated Arab unity but two of its founding fathers, Michel Aflaq and Zaki al-Arsuzi, both Syrians, disliked each other and would not be members of the same party.

Projects to fuse Syria and Egypt and, later, Syria and Iraq foundered, creating in the latter case a personal bitterness between Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez, and Saddam Hussein, though both were Baathists, at least nominally. That led to the two states breaking off diplomatic relations with each other at the end of 1979. When Iraq invaded Iran the following year, Syria and Iran became allies against Iraq. Syria cut off an oil pipeline that had allowed Iraq to export its oil from a Mediterranean port and Iran supplied Syria with cheap oil.

Stop. Do you see some things more clearly?

The Middle Eastern version of Islam, as practiced, is founded in barbarity, cruelty, nomads, bedouins. They do not recognize the lines as ascribed to their countries by western civilizations. Iranians are Persians. They are not Arabs. Never confuse a Persian with an Arab. Both will slit your carotid for doing so.

Then there is another distinguishing element to be revealed.

Even within Syria there are divisions within divisions, wheels within wheels. From the ThoughtCo.com:

The Difference Between Alawites and Sunnis in Syria

by Primoz Manfreda

Why is there Sunni-Alawite tension in Syria?

The differences between Alawites and Sunnis in Syria have sharpened dangerously since the beginning of the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, whose family is Alawite. The reason for tension is primarily political, rather than religious: top position in Assad’s army are held by Alawite officers, while most of the rebels from the Free Syrian Army come from Syria’s Sunni majority.

Sufficiently confused yet?

  • Geographical Presence: Alawites are a Muslim minority group that accounts for around 12% of Syria’s population, with a few small pockets in Lebanon and Turkey (though not to be confused with Alevis, a Turkish Muslim minority). Around 70% of Syrians belongs to Sunni Islam, as does almost 90% of all Muslims in the world).
    Historical Alawite heartlands lie in the mountainous hinterland of Syria’s Mediterranean coast in the country’s west, next to the coastal city of Latakia. Alawites form the majority in Latakia province, although the city itself is mixed between Sunnis, Alawites and Christians. Alawites also have a sizeable presence in the central province of Homs and in the capital Damascus.
  • Doctrinal Differences: Alawites practice a unique but little known form of Islam that dates back to the 9th and 10th century. Its secretive nature is an outcome of centuries of isolation from the mainstream society and periodical persecution by the Sunni majority.

Here is a list of all Islamic attacks under the Obama Administration. But still, just out of curiosity, are there questions that can determine Sunni vs Shiite?

There are. From the NYT.com:

Questions Rebels Use to Tell Sunni From Shiite

by Alissa J. Rubin

BAGHDAD — Whether a person is a Shiite or a Sunni Muslim in Iraq can now be, quite literally, a matter of life and death.

As the militant group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has seized vast territories in western and northern Iraq, there have been frequent accounts of fighters’ capturing groups of people and releasing the Sunnis while the Shiites are singled out for execution.

ISIS believes that the Shiites are apostates and must die in order to forge a pure form of Islam. The two main branches of Islam diverge in their beliefs over who is the true inheritor of the mantle of the Prophet Muhammad. The Shiites believe that Islam was transmitted through the household of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunnis believe that it comes down through followers of the Prophet Muhammad who, they say, are his chosen people.

This isn’t a matter of the “big picture” like the previous administration. Things now get down to very specific details.

But how can ISIS tell whether a person is a Sunni or a Shiite? From accounts of people who survived encounters with the militants, it seems they often ask a list of questions. Here are some of them:

  • What is your name?
  • Where do you live?
  • How do you pray?
  • What kind of music do you listen to?

Back to reality. During President Trump’s first outright military action, let’s be honest. Not much occurred. Thousands didn’t perish. Hundreds didn’t perish. Dozens didn’t perish.

However, there occurred the customary posturing anticipated.

Iran is unhappy and described as “tense.”

Vladimir Putin sets his own “red line” in concert with Iran;

It’s all about what occurs next.

How about we try to do this: keep American boots from smacking Syrian dirt. Strike as necessary. Attempt to build a global consensus to give Syria back to Syrians. And then provide an incentive for Syrians in Europe to 1) go back home, and 2) not leave in the first place. That would include safe zones in Syria. Because the fewer Muslims in western countries, the easier it becomes to identify ISIS and its corruptive elements. And, well, because true Islam and Sharia is completely incongruent with western values.

But have we been duped into fighting a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, of Sunni vs Shiite?

This is President Trump’s first test, militarily. He has both pleased and displeased. Overall, to this point, I submit that he has not been found wanting.

All of that said, delineated and extrapolated, here is what I believe occurred with regard to President Trump and the Syrian missile attack. His daughter Ivanka pressed for this and, once Trump saw the photos and video of dead and injured civilians, women and children, he reacted. Emotionally.

What I also believe is that his generals and advisers were in congruence with this thinking because it didn’t remove President Trump from the mainstream of a limited and coordinated response. It served everyone’s purpose.

This is both assuring and disturbing, simultaneously.

BZ

 

Hawaiian federal judge puts Trump’s travel ban on hold

With loving and enthused huzzahs from everyone on the Leftist bank.

From SacBee.com:

The Latest: Judge in Hawaii puts Trump’s travel ban on hold

by the Associated Press

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued his ruling Wednesday after hearing arguments on Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order involving the ban.

His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday.

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

Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.

The state also says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.

Roughly the same argument as before. Judges don’t seem to understand the law, as federal Judge Derrick Watson may be educated but fails to grasp the immediacy and plain text of 8 USC 1182, as well as Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787. He also takes not into consideration the actions of Mr Obama in 2011 and 2015, as well as the immigration drought between roughly 1921/1924 to 1965.

8 USC 1182 states:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

4:45 p.m.

A Justice Department attorney is arguing that there’s no need for a judge in Hawaii to issue an emergency restraining order against the revised travel ban issued by President Donald Trump.

Jeffrey Wall of the Office of the Solicitor General said during a hearing Wednesday that plaintiffs have said little about harm from the ban that was not speculative.

He said Hawaii is making generalized allegations.

Wall said if the judge is inclined to issue an injunction, it shouldn’t be nationwide and should be tailored to the claims raised by Hawaii.

There, of course, will be more.

BZ

 

Wisconsin judge interferes with 2nd Trump travel stay

But not nearly to the extent that did Judge Robart in Washington state, and with a fraction of the prior focus on President Trump’s second travel stay, Executive Order 13769 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States).

From Politico.com:

Revised Trump travel ban suffers first legal blow

by Josh Gerstein

Federal judge in Wisconsin blocks impact on Syrian family as other courts mull broader relief.

President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban executive order suffered its first legal setback Friday as a federal judge blocked the directive’s potential impact on the family of a Syrian refugee living in Wisconsin.

Madison-based U.S. District Court Judge William Conley issued a temporary retraining order at the request of the Syrian man, who is referred to as “John Doe” in court filings. The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said Trump’s new executive order cannot be used to delay the man’s effort to bring his wife and 3-year-old daughter from the wartorn country to the U.S., but is limited to the individuals involved in the case.

As you can see the effect is limited in scope and quite pointedly focuses on one Syrian man’s family.

Do not doubt, however, that every Leftist and sympathetic federal judge aren’t in deep talks at this very moment in an attempt to craft the perfect eliminatory argument.

The major differences between the first and second Trump EO:

  • Iraq is no longer included as a banned country as it will provide extra vetting;
  • Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia are still included in the travel stay;
  • Green Card holders may enter even if from the above listed countries;

Other differences include:

President Trump signed a new travel ban Monday that administration officials said they hope will end legal challenges over the matter by imposing a 90-day ban on the issuance of new visas for citizens of six majority-Muslim nations.

In addition, the nation’s refu­gee program will be suspended for 120 days, and the United States will not accept more than 50,000 refugees in a year, down from the 110,000 cap set by the Obama administration.

One the most significant unmentioned differences? The absence of national protests. Do we see a tiny crack in the Leftist/anarchist armor?

Judge Napolitano weighs in on President Trump’s second Executive Order:

Surely there will be more to come.

BZ

 

Seattle Judge Robart: won’t issue order against Trump’s new travel stay

[See background material here about President Trump’s first travel stay, with additional excellent insight from Byron York here.]

From the BBC.com:

Trump travel ban: Judge declines to reinstate ruling

A US judge has declined to issue an emergency order banning President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban.

The ruling came from Seattle district judge James Robart, the same judge who had issued the order that in effect halted implementation of the first ban.

Judge Robart said lawyers needed to file more extensive documentation.

The new 90-day ban on citizens of six mostly Muslim nations is due to come into effect on Thursday but has sparked legal action in a number of states.

What’s different this time around?

  • Iraq is no longer included as a banned country as it will provide extra vetting;
  • Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia are still included in the travel stay;
  • Green Card holders may enter even if from the above listed countries;

Leftist states are suing once again, of course, to include Maryland, New York, Oregon, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Washington.

One bit of information you likely did not hear, a video, regarding President Trump’s first travel stay, was from a US Marine recently serving in Iraq.

As you might expect, his video created quite a stir in February, because he dared to ask probably the most important question as yet unasked by the American Media Maggots. Sean Hannity had this response.

Also from FoxNews.com:

Lance Corporal Steven Gern, 42, who worked as a contractor in Iraq starting in 2005, posted his video on February 1, and told Fox News he was evacuated from Iraq the next day because of it.

In the video, Gern said he had spoken to a group of Iraqi men about the travel ban, without getting into specifics. “My simple question was, ‘As an American, if I went out in town right now, would I be welcome?’ And they instantly said, ‘Absolutely not, you would not be welcome.’ And I said, ‘OK, so what would happen if I went out of town?’ And they said the locals would snatch me up and kill me within an hour.”

He states the obvious when he says:

“The Iraqis, in general, have very little respect for any America –regardless of whether you’re a Marine, a contractor, or a civilian—they have very little respect for you,” Gern told Fox News. “The United States pumps more and more money and it’s not appreciated –why don’t we just take care of our own?”

Gern told Fox News he has not had contact with his company, and is concerned about losing his job after posting the video, but felt it was necessary.

The question then becomes: under what legal theory will President Trump’s travel stay be attacked this time? That said, kudos to the Trump administration for continuing their persistence regarding this extremely important issue.

BZ