Byron York nails federal judge James Robart

Who, as it turns out, knows next-to-nothing about the state of immigrants in America.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order

by Byron York

James Robart, the U.S. district judge in Washington State, offered little explanation for his decision to stop President Trump‘s executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terror-plagued countries. Robart simply declared his belief that Washington State, which in its lawsuit against Trump argued that the order is both illegal and unconstitutional, would likely win the case when it is tried.

Now the government has answered Robart, and unlike the judge, Justice Department lawyers have produced a point-by-point demolition of Washington State’s claims. Indeed, for all except the most partisan, it is likely impossible to read the Washington State lawsuit, plus Robart’s brief comments and writing on the matter, plus the Justice Department’s response, and not come away with the conclusion that the Trump order is on sound legal and constitutional ground.

“A judge is just a lawyer who curried favor with a politician.”
— Russell Baker, NYT columnist

True, as you get to become a federal judge by being nominated by a senator from your individual state. In the Ninth DCA, remember, covering California, Oregon and Washington, you’re getting six Demorat senators who are going to do nothing but nominate Demorat judges. Can I get a “duh” from the audience?

Beginning with the big picture, the Justice Department argued that Robart’s restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president’s constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and “second-guesses the president’s national security judgment” about risks faced by the United States.

Indeed, in court last week, Robart suggested that he, Robart, knows as much, or perhaps more, than the president about the current state of the terrorist threat in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and other violence-plagued countries. In an exchange with Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, Robart asked, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?”

“Your Honor, I don’t have that information,” said Bennett.

Who does? Judge Robarts swears he does but he either 1) knows nothing, or 2) simply pulled the figure out from his judicial arse.

“Let me tell you,” said Robart. “The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, you’re here arguing on behalf of someone [President Trump] that says: We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

No support for that? ISIS has, in fact, said time after time that it insinuates members into refugee streams throughout all the European nations. The Washington Post throws out a number: 60. Byron York writes about Judge Robart’s ruling:

Now, it turns out Robart might not know as much as he let on. Last summer, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest analyzed public sources of information, seeking to learn more about people convicted of terror-related offenses. The Justice Department provided the subcommittee with a list of 580 people who were convicted — not just arrested, but tried and convicted — of terror-related offenses between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2014.

But more specifically:

The subcommittee investigated further and found that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born and that an additional 129 were of unknown origin. Of the 380, there were representatives — at least 60 — from all of the countries on the Trump executive order list. And with 129 unknowns, there might be more, as well.

Byron York continues with his original argument:

Perhaps Robart has been briefed by the intelligence community on conditions in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and the rest. Perhaps Robart has received the President’s Daily Brief. Perhaps not.** In any event, the Justice Department argued — reasonably but not successfully — that it is the president, and not a U.S. District Court judge in the Western District of Washington State, who has the knowledge and the authority to make such decisions.

“Your Honor, I think the point is that because this is a question of foreign affairs, because this is an area where Congress has delegated authority to the president to make these determinations, it’s the president that gets to make the determinations,” Bennett said. “And the court doesn’t have authority to look behind those determinations.”

Again I repeat, at the risk of becoming the Department of Redundancy Dept., President Trump’s authority to primarily do as he did is granted under 8 USC 1182.

Please read the rest of Mr York’s excellent article which essentially states this: a federal judge overstepped his bounds. Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in again and thinks the Ninth District Court of Appeals may just reverse Judge Robart and reinstate the executive order as he believes Washington and Minnesota lack the requisite standing.

Also please see my first post about Trump’s travel stay here, where I go into great detail about the executive order, its roll-out and legality.

Finally, Judge James Robart is an odd-duck cipher; a Bush-appointed Republican who goes askew on strange issues. From BlueLivesMatter.com:

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

by Officer Blue

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

Seattle, Washington – U.S. District Judge James Robart on Monday expressed a strong anti-police bias when dealing with a case involving Seattle police union’s contract negotiations. Judge Robart went on a rant about deadly force statistics against black people and proclaimed, “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart is presiding over a 2012 consent decree requiring the city to adopt reforms to address Department of Justice allegations of biased policing and excessive force. The proposed changes will have a major effect on all union members, including discipline being investigated and determined by non-law enforcement investigators. The changes make it faster and easier to discipline an officer if the public believes that the officer was wrong, whether or not that was actually the case.

Continuing to build an image in his mind of being some sort of folk-hero, Judge Robart went on to say that 41 percent of the shootings by police were of blacks, when they represented 20 percent of the population. Judge Robart then declared that “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart’s rant is actually a perfect example of why law enforcement officers cannot be excluded from the process of disciplining other officers. The statistics on police shootings that Judge Robart cited were completely out of context, and ignore the reasons that shooting occur.

Milo Yiannopoulos talks about immigrants and refugees having destroyed Europe.

I don’t believe Americans or Europeans hate immigrants or immigration. What they do dislike is watching their countries — particularly the EU — being consumed from within by hordes of individuals in such numbers as to almost ensure no assimilation whatsoever. Sadly, it is from the EU that we should learn. Again, thank the Atlantic Ocean.

Bottom line? I believe the law is on President Trump’s side. That does not mean there weren’t visual problems with its roll-out and coordination. And it doesn’t mean that judges don’t have axes to grind or agendas to keep.

One interesting note: the judge in Boston who held for President Trump likely has the Boston Marathon Bombing in the back of his mind, has experienced the reality of close terror and wants to ensure we know whom we’re allowing into our nation.

BZ

P.S.

This is England. This could be the United States — beginning with Michigan — shortly. Remember: “demography is prophecy.”

Wise up, America. Educate yourself about Islam.

Finally, this is President Trump speaking about illegal immigrants and the need to follow the rule of law.

Oh wait, sorry. That was Barack Hussein Obama in 2005. My mistake. A black man can say this about illegal immigration but Caucasoids cannot. A grievous error on my part.

 

Leftists: dissension must be ELIMINATED

Leftists DON'T ALLOW DISSENSIONFirst on the agenda: the Drudge Report (though it’s nothing more than an aggregator) and Fox News.  Then the entire internet.

EXAMPLE ONE:

First, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Fox targeted by FEC Dems in first-ever vote to punish debate sponsorship

by Paul Bedard

Finally making good on long-harbored anger at conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission voted in secret to punish Fox News’ sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, using an obscure law to charge the network with helping those on stage.

STOP.  Read that first sentence again: “Finally making good on LONG-HARBORED ANGER at CONSERVATIVE media, DEMOCRATS on the Federal Election Commission voted in SECRET to PUNISH Fox News’ sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, USING AN OBSCURE LAW to charge the network with helping those on stage.”

Would that not be unlike Lois Lerner and the IRS who complained bitterly that no such thing was done until finally the IRS admitted that precisely that thing was done?

It is the first time in history that members of the FEC voted to punish a media outlet’s debate sponsorship, and it follows several years of Democratic threats against conservative media and websites like the Drudge Report.

The punishment, however, was blocked by all three Republicans on the commission, resulting in a 3-3 tie vote and no action. The vote was posted Thursday and is here.

Imagine the results had Demorats simply owned that board, as Demorats own the state of California on most every level?

It seems that CNN sponsored quite a number of Democrat debates.  CNN sponsored four Democrat debates, of the ten documented — that’s almost half.  The GOP had twelve debates, six of which were sponsored by Fox.  That also is half.  Any issue with the FEC?

Here’s the obvious kicker:

CNN did the same thing, but there is no indication that they faced a complaint.

Do not think that the Demorats and Leftists are content to stop there.  They absolutely, incontrovertibly, wish to control the entire internet and all its content — particularly if that content is right-leaning in nature.

EXAMPLE TWO:

Also from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Federal regulation of Internet coming, warn FCC, FEC commissioners

by Paul Bedard

Democrats targeting content and control of the Internet, especially from conservative sources, are pushing hard to layer on new regulations and even censorship under the guise of promoting diversity while policing bullying, warn commissioners from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission.

“Protecting freedom on the Internet is just one vote away,” said Lee E. Goodman, a commissioner on the FEC which is divided three Democrats to three Republicans. “There is a cloud over your free speech.”

What is diversity?  In the eyes of Leftists, it is a One World Barbeque — that is, all persons saying, writing and thinking the same: a Leftist fashion.  Dissension cannot be tolerated.  What the FEC and Leftists and Demorats want is the same freedom of speech one now customarily finds on college campuses in America today; that is, little to none.

BZ License To BlogIn this vein I wrote, many years ago in 2010, that I could foresee the time where I as a blogger would require a literal license to blog.  To express my opinions and feelings.

Freedom of speech on the Internet, added Ajit Pai, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, “is increasingly under threat.”

Pai and Goodman cited political correctness campaigns by Democrats as a threat. Both also said their agencies are becoming politicized and the liberals are using their power to push regulations that impact business and conservative outlets and voices.

Of course it’s under threat.  Leftists and Demorat want absolute control of speech as well as most every other aspect of your life.  With a SCOTUS that leans far left as would occur under the lying and brazenly-corrupt Hillary Clinton, you can quite certainly wave good-bye to your Bill of Rights, with the Second and First Amendments primarily in their PC sights.

“One of the things that is critical for this country is to reassert the value of the First Amendment, the fact that robust discourse, that is sometimes cacophonous, is nonetheless a value, in fact it creates value,” said Pai.

But wait; perhaps you thought I was kidding with the whole “my blog will be involved as will yours” thingie?  Read on.

At a CATO Institute discussion on online speech Wednesday night, both said that regulators are eager to issue new rules that could put limits on what people could say on blogs, online news and even YouTube. Washington Examiner reporter Rudy Takala and Cato’s digital manager Kat Murti were also on the panel.

There it is in black and white.  Do not for a moment believe that, somehow, miraculously, you will remain unaffected — particularly if you are a Conservative.  Or a Libertarian for that matter — John Stossel, I’m looking at you, sir.

Pai, addressing Goodman, added, “The common thread of our experiences I think is this impulse of control, whether it’s the FCC and the impulse of the government to want to control how these networks operate, and the FEC to control the content of the traffic that traverses over those networks, and I think that certainly highlights the importance of the First Amendment.”

Goodman concluded, “We need to be ever mindful and vigilant not to let governmental agencies through 3-2 votes, or 4-2 votes at the FEC take that away from us.”

Let there be no mistake.  Leftists and Demorats want control of our lives, complete and utter control of what we do, what we eat, where we live, how we live our lives and ultimately what we write, say and even think.

Leftists and Demorats would truly be pleased with a 1984 environment.

1984 - Big BrotherI can see an upheaval coming, ladies and gentlemen, if Demorats and Leftists keep removing our rights and our freedoms.

BZ

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

BZ’s very own federal government: coming for MY First Amendment rights

First Amendment WrappedFirst, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Dems on FEC move to regulate Internet campaigns, blogs, Drudge

by Paul Bedard

In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report.

Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.

Does anyone with a semblance of common sense realize, for example, what the Drudge Report actually is?  For the most part Matt Drudge doesn’t write his stories; his site is merely an aggregator of stories from around the globe and around the internet.

He takes them and collates them, then places them on his site with accompanying headlines.  It is the headlines and the types of stories featured on Drudge to which Leftists object.  They also object to Drudge’s massive popularity and his incalculable hit ratio.

When Drudge makes a link to a story, that site’s servers can frequently be downed due to the quantity of hits.  To object to Drudge, however, is to object to reality.

“I told you this was coming.”

Under a 2006 FEC rule, free political videos and advocacy sites have been free of regulation in a bid to boost voter participation in politics. Only Internet videos that are placed for a fee on websites, such as the Washington Examiner, are regulated just like normal TV ads.

Ravel’s statement suggests that she would regulate right-leaning groups like America Rising that posts anti-Democrat YouTube videos on its website.

FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site or even chat room could be regulated. He added that funny internet campaigns like “Obama Girl,” and “Jib Jab” would also face regulations.

“I told you this was coming,” he told Secrets. Earlier this year he warned that Democrats on the panel were gunning for conservative Internet sites like the Drudge Report.

An incredibly important final paragraph:

“Regrettably, the 3-to-3 vote in this matter suggests a desire to retreat from these important protections for online political speech — a shift in course that could threaten the continued development of the Internet’s virtual free marketplace of political ideas and democratic debate,” they concluded.

Ladies and gentlemen, when did you ever possibly believe that your First Amendment rights could even remotely be threatened by some capricious force that is not guaranteed by your federal government in its Bill of Rights or US Constitution?

Is that not insane?  Your federal government threatening its own guarantees?

BZ

US Flag Under Attack