Tag Archives: Donald Trump

What is it with Sweden?

Posted on by

People think the Swedish meatball started rolling with Trump.

Wrong. The Swedish meatballs started rolling with the Muslim refugees. First, President Trump’s remarks from his recent Melbourne, Florida rally on February 20th.

Then, CNN weighed in as did Sweden.

The Swedish Prime Minister was “surprised by Trump’s comments.”

“I was, like many others I believe, surprised by the comments made about Sweden this weekend,” Lofven said during a joint press conference in Stockholm with visiting Canadian Governor General David Johnston.

Trump, speaking in Florida on Saturday, said; “You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible”.

Trump was referring to this documentary by Ami Horowitz about Sweden and its Muslim refugees.

The problem, of course, is that so-called “no-go zones” in Sweden are real, as opposed to assertions by the Swedish government, embarrassed as it is by its soft white underbelly revealed. They are not the “humanitarian superpower” they think they are. The Swedish government cannot admit any fault. Their moral superiority regarding multiculturalism cannot, must not, be damaged. They deny and will continue to deny because their GOWP hearts won’t allow otherwise.

The secondary problem is that Sweden then lit up with riots. But you can’t say that. And you can’t say that President Trump was correct. Or can you? Please listen to the woman in this video, as she provides a cogent explanation for all. Frankly, there is nothing better than video examples of these issues. They need to be seen and they need to be heard.

Yes, there was a “worldwide uproar” about Trump’s comments. But the comments were in fact proven true and, worse for Sweden, upheld by Swedish police officers.

A SWEDISH police officer has launched a seething attack on the country’s politically correct approach to immigration as he claimed migrants were to blame for the most serious crimes.

In a Facebook rant, Peter Springare said his post was not politically correct, but he did not care as he was soon retiring after 47 years of service. 

Sweden has been hard hit to cope with unprecedented levels of crimes and incidents, as the National Criminal Investigation Service admitted last year that more than‘no-gowhere police did not have control.

In the report, attacks on police officers were detailed, along with incidents of . 

Taking to Facebook to share his frustration, Mr Springare, who works as an investigator for the Örebro police, said the lion’s share of the s were committed by migrants. 

Even back in January of 2016, Swedish police officers stopped reporting about the ethnicity of criminal suspects for fear of being branded as racists.

Swedish police have been ordered not to release descriptions of crime suspects which include race or nationality to avoid being branded racist. A memo handed out to all officers instructs them to withhold the information from the public when reporting all routine crimes, including burglary.

From now on, crimes must be reported on the police website without mentioning basic descriptive information such as “height, skin colour, nationality and race, etc.” the memo, seen by Svenska Dagbladet (SvD), reads. According to the paper, the new regulation could be applied to everything “from minor traffic accidents to serious crimes like muggings, beatings and murder.”

The memo makes it clear that the instruction has been handed down to avoid accusations of racism, telling officers: “The police are sometimes criticised for reporting on peoples’ skin colour. We are perceived as racist. As the police are not racist, nor should be perceived as such, from now on, please apply these instructions.”

This, of course, is in-depth information you won’t find on other websites, other government reports, other cable channels. Because they don’t have the time or the inclination for it. What I do, with each post, is take an idea or a theme and then write about it logically, cogently and chronologically — as I do here.

The bottom line? Sweden’s government is trying to cover up Muslim refugee/immigrant violence because it doesn’t reflect well on Sweden’s GOWP philosophy of “all people are equal and all cultures are equal.” Guess what? They’re not.

According to Sweden, to reveal the truth about Muslim refugees/immigrants is tantamount to a Thought Crime or a Hate Crime.

Between 2012 and 2016 the murder rate climbed almost 70% in Sweden. These are official Swedish statistics. Rape between 2007 and 2015 is up almost 70% as well. In Sweden you can be imprisoned for providing an unpopular opinion. There is no such thing as the First Amendment in Sweden.

There is this much-ignored article from WSJ.com:

Trump Is Right: Sweden’s Embrace of Refugees Isn’t Working

by Jimmie Akesson & Mattias Karlsson

When President Trump last week raised Sweden’s problematic experience with open-door immigration, skeptics were quick to dismiss his claims. Two days later an immigrant suburb of Stockholm was racked by another riot. No one was seriously injured, though the crowd burned cars and hurled stones at police officers.

Or this insightful article from the UKSpectator.com:

How Sweden became an example of how not to handle immigration

by Tove Lifvendahl

We’ve taken in far too many people and we’re letting them down badly – especially the children

For a British boy to be killed by a grenade attack anywhere is appalling, but for it to happen in a suburb of Gothenburg should shatter a few illusions about Sweden. Last week’s murder of eight-year-old Yuusuf Warsame fits a pattern that Swedes have come slowly to recognise over the years. He was from Birmingham, visiting relatives, and was caught up in what Swedish police believe is a gang war within the Somali community. Last year, a four-year-old girl was killed by a car bomb outside Gothenburg, another apparent victim of gang violence.

The acknowledgment of which is refused by the Swedish government. Because the truth, eventually, will out.

For years, Sweden has regarded itself as a ‘humanitarian superpower’ — making its mark on the world not by fighting wars but by offering shelter to war’s victims. Refugees have arrived here in extraordinary numbers. Over the past 15 years, some 650,000 asylum-seekers made their way to Sweden. Of the 163,000 who arrived last year, 32,000 were granted asylum. Sweden accepts more refugees in proportion to size of population than any other nation in the developed world — when it comes to offering shelter, no one does it better. But when it comes to integrating those we take in (or finding the extra housing, schools and healthcare needed for them), we don’t do so well.

Did I not specifically quantify Sweden’s idealistic vision of itself, above, as a “humanitarian superpower”? The focus then becomes more strident.

It may be news to the rest of the world, but gang warfare has been a feature of our country for years now. Stockholm has been witness to Dickensian scenes of young pickpockets and thieves playing games of cat-and-mouse with the police, who feel powerless. Until fairly recently, Sweden was admired for its progressive social policies. Today, one in seven voters supports the Sweden Democrats, a populist party until recently reviled in polite Swedish society.

The cost of accommodating our child refugees is enormous: £160 per child per day. That could be money well spent, if it worked. There are serious concerns, though, about children falling victim to predatory adults who have lied about their age. Earlier this year, a boy of 12 was raped in refugee accommodation by another refugee who claimed to be 15. A dental X-ray suggested the attacker was closer to 19. Later that month, a 22-year-old Swede (herself the daughter of immigrants) was stabbed to death by one of the refugees she was caring for — another adult claiming to be 15.

The problem with Sweden is this: the huge dichotomous conflict. The Scandinavian country received more refugees per capita than anywhere else in Europe last year. The total population of Sweden, for example, is 9.5 million. This is not far from the population of, say, New York City at 8.4 million.

Some facts:

1. Germany and France have the largest Muslim populations among European Union member countries. As of 2010, there were 4.8 million Muslims in Germany (5.8% of the country’s population) and 4.7 million Muslims in France (7.5%). In Europe overall, however, Russia’s population of 14 million Muslims (10%) is the largest on the continent.

2. The Muslim share of Europe’s total population has been increasing steadily. In recent decades, the Muslim share of the population throughout Europe grew about 1 percentage point a decade, from 4% in 1990 to 6% in 2010. This pattern is expected to continue through 2030, when Muslims are projected to make up 8% of Europe’s population.

3. Muslims are younger than other Europeans. In 2010, the median age of Muslims throughout Europe was 32, eight years younger than the median for all Europeans (40). By contrast, the median age of religiously unaffiliated people in Europe, including atheists, agnostics and those with no religion in particular, was 37. The median age of European Christians was 42.

One final article, from DailyWire.com:

How Muslim Migration Made Malmo, Sweden A Crime Capital

by Michael Qazvini

Scores of Swedes took to the streets of Malmo, a southern city in Sweden, on Monday to protest an epidemic of violence that has taken the lives of far too many young people. The last victim was 16-year-old Ahmed Obaid. He was killed last Thursday after an unidentified gunman unleashed a salvo of bullets.

“Our kids should sleep well, play at play parks, feel safe,” Housam Abbas, the victim’s cousin, said, according to the Local.

Malmo, this once quiet city, is now overrun with violence. The culture of fear is so palpable that parents are no longer comfortable sending their children out to play.

“You have to look over your shoulder when you go out at night now. I don’t let my little brother go out at night any more,” said one high school student at Monday’s protest in front of city hall. “I hope that the politicians actually view this as a serious problem and start to solve this in Malmö.”

Stand by for the truth.

After being handed a list of measures to curb the violence in the city, Justice and Migration Minister Morgan Johansson stated in a matter-of-fact tone: “We have to get rid of the weapons, we need tighter punishment so that those who are held for serious gun crime can be arrested immediately and not just be released a few days later.”

What Johansson failed to mention, however, was the fact that the bulk of the violence stems from one community.

The Muslim immigrant community has a crime problem. It’s a truism that Swedish (and European) politicians have denied in bold-faced lies and assurances to the public.

But wait. Wait.

Didn’t President Trump say that Sweden had a problem? And didn’t Sweden and other Fake News organs say it wasn’t true?

I think you can draw your own conclusions.

BZ

 Share

Reacting to the Ninth Circuit opinion

Posted on by

Following an unsatisfactory ruling by Judge Robart in the state of Washington and an equally dissatisfying opinion from the Night District Court of Appeals in San Francisco, analyses have to be made and new plans created.

The Ninth and Robart’s court essentially gave due process rights to people in Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Iran. People outside this country possess no constitutional rights whatsoever. Additionally, despite that, 77% of refugees arriving in the US since the travel stay suspension have been from those seven enumerated countries. One-third of that 77% are from Syria alone.

Even Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is telling us the obvious.

Dr John Eastman, a constitutional law scholar, law professor and former Dean at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California weighed in on the Ninth’s opinion.

9th Circuit court’s coup d’etat flouts immigration law, precedent

BY DR. JOHN C. EASTMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 02/10/17 02:20 PM EST

Like it or not, Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States on Nov. 8, 2016, and sworn into office on Jan. 20, 2017.  He won the election, in significant part, because he promised to enforce our nation’s immigration laws more vigorously and to enhance significantly the vetting of refugees and other aliens seeking admission to the United States, in order to ensure to the extent possible that terrorists were not coming to our shores.

Nevertheless, there is now a concerted effort by many on the left (and even some on the “Never Trump” right) to block President Trump at every turn in order to prevent him from implementing the agenda on which he was elected.

For instance, according to FoxNews.com:

As of Wednesday, Trump was still waiting on confirmation for 10 of his 15 Cabinet nominees. By this time in 2001, then-President George W. Bush had his entire Cabinet confirmed. Then-President Barack Obama was just three short of a full Cabinet on Feb. 8, 2009. 

Senate Republican leaders asserted this week that — based on numbers provided by the Partnership for Public Service, Plum Book, and Congress.gov — Trump has the fewest Cabinet secretaries confirmed at this point in the presidency of any incoming president since George Washington. 

Continuing with Dr Eastman:

Regrettably, that effort now seems to include using the courts to achieve political ends that could not be achieved through the electoral process.

The 9th Circuit’s order upholding Judge Robart’s nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) is nearly as bereft of legal analysis as was the original TRO.

For example, in determining whether Trump was likely to succeed on the merits, one might have expected some discussion of the relevant statute that unambiguously gives the president the authority to do what he did here (and what President Carter, in response to the Iranian take-over of our embassy in Tehran, did back in 1979).

That statute, Section 1182(f) of Title 8, provides:

“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 restriction he may deem to be appropriate.”

If you are a reader of this blog and a listener to my radio show, I suspect some of this information is beginning to sound repetitive. 8 USC 1182? President Carter?

It does not get much clearer than that, yet the 9th Circuit does not even cite, much less explain away, that statute.

Why? Why not refer to the obvious? Because, after all, Leftists absolutely insist there are no agendas whatsoever entering into the lives or opinions of federal judges, right? Except that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants to change the Electoral College most recently.

Nor did the 9th Circuit cite the language in controlling Supreme Court precedent that makes unmistakably clear that the decision whether or not to admit aliens or any class of aliens is an inherent aspect of sovereignty vested by our Constitution in the legislative and executive branches of our government that is “largely immune from judicial control.”

Instead, the 9th Circuit held that the denial of visas to foreign nationals from countries that President Obama himself had certified as being hotbeds of terrorism likely violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, despite the fact that another controlling decision of the Supreme Court has quite clearly held that foreign nationals have no right whatsoever to enter the United States, and hence no property or liberty interest that is subject to the Due Process clause.  

Again, does this not sound familiar to you? Dr Eastman summarizes wonderfully.

Whether or not a particular judge or panel of judges likes the policy judgment made by the president, it is the president, not the judge, who was elected to make that decision.  

Indeed, the notion that a single federal trial court judge can take it upon himself to determine national security and immigration policy, in the face of explicit determinations made by the president with the full support of law actually adopted by Congress, is so far beyond the judicial role as to pose a serious threat, not just to our national security, but to the rule of law.  

That a panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the order does not place it on more solid footing but rather merely expands the lawlessness to a higher court.  One can only hope that the Supreme Court will put a stop to this usurpation, and quickly.  

Otherwise, we as a nation have a much bigger problem to confront than terrorists seeking entry to the United States.

Some have distilled the decision to some solid bullet points, like Ben Shapiro.

1. States Suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” If Aliens Can’t Come To University Classes.This is absolutely absurd. It would strike down virtually any immigration law. All immigration laws restrict classes of people from entering, numbers of people from entering. Some of those people would undoubtedly go to university, or teach there. Does this mean that states can now sue to overturn all immigration laws?

2. The Federal Government Doesn’t Suffer “Irreparable Injury” If The Courts Overrule Immigration Policy. The court casually states that while the government has an interest in combatting terrorism, the “Government has done little more than reiterate that fact.” The executive branch didn’t explain sufficiently to the judiciary why the executive order needed to be put into effect, and so the executive branch has to go home emptyhanded. Again, this is ridiculous. Are we supposed to wait to be hit? Would the judiciary apply this same standard to, say, gun control laws?

3. Everybody Has Due Process Rights. This is perhaps the craziest element of the ruling: the statement that everyone from lawful permanent residents to aliens with a visa traveling abroad has due process rights. The court even says that illegal aliens have due process rights. The Constitution isn’t just for citizens anymore – which begs the question as to why anyone would bother applying for citizenship.

4. Courts Can Look To Motive Rather Than Text. The court said that they could look at Donald Trump’s statements during the campaign about a Muslim ban in order to evaluate this executive order. This is dangerous. Attempting to read the minds of those who put together laws is far more arbitrary than reading the text or looking at the application of the law. It’s also amazing that the Ninth Circuit would say this now, but that the Supreme Court would ignore President Obama saying for YEARS that Obamacare was not a tax, then rule that Obamacare was indeed a tax.

5. The Court Refuses To Strike Down Portions. Normally, the court works to avoid striking down entire laws or staying entire executive orders. Instead, the court just threw up its hands and suggested that it had done its best, but it couldn’t bother doing a close read.

First, a brief bit of truth about the Middle East.

Second, an interview by Tucker Carlson of the District of Columbia (DC) Attorney General (AG), Karl Racine, who allows us to peek briefly into the minds of the Cabal of Black Robes.

Please note Tucker extrapolating the argument, doing what I call the “logical extension,” as if it hadn’t occurred to an attorney and — perhaps it didn’t. Which in and of itself is a massively short-sighted and extremely troubling issue, particularly when unseen by a highly educated individual like AG Racine.

What Tucker has exposed if you’re reading between his questions is the insular and inbred fashion in which the law exists today via the manner in which it is interpreted by Left-leaning judges.

AG Racine, however, does provide some light, some very noteworthy light, in his response to Tucker’s questions about “what next”?

The government argued that Trump’s executive orders were “unreviewable.” I’m going to go out on a limb a bit and say 1) that was a major tactical error on behalf of the government, because 2) human nature became involved, meaning 3) the judges got pissed off and reacted viscerally — as in “oh really? We shall now show you what is ‘unreviewable.’ ”

AG Racine made one incredibly-important point by intimating the government had not done its homework, when it could not provide one instance in which a refugee had been arrested or charged with terror in the US. Judge Robart said that was because there were none to cite, which is a lie. Racine made the point, however: the government was ill prepared. I cited numerous cases here, however.

Tucker then brought up the issue of Soviet Jews who were allowed into the US up until 1988 simply because of their persecution due to religion — clearly a “religious test.” Again, upon which AG Racine was caught flat-footed in response. Being a student of Paul Ekman and Sgt Carl Stincelli, I noted during the formulation of Carlson’s question the darting concern in the eyes of Racine as he either consulted notes or accessed spheres in his brain from which to respond.

AG Racine then made more interesting points when he said the words of Trump and his aides essentially came back to bite them. Yet Tucker perseveres with the truth when he factually refers to US law having been predicated upon “country of origin.”

However, AG Racine once more provides illumination to Tucker Carlson.

  1. “Your department of justice did not make any of the arguments you made.”
  2. “They found the government’s arguments were unavailing.”

The underlying subtext being: had the government made those arguments, would they have prevailed?

Moreover: why did the government not provide those arguments?

Then let us listen to Newt Gingrich bring some history into view with regard to federal judges.

It was Judge Andrew Napolitano who initially thought the Ninth Circuit might overturn Judge Robart.

Now, Judge Napolitano suggests a different strategy.

That tactic is: “Rescind the executive order and issue a new one.” As of this writing there are 48 lawsuits against President Trump; Napolitano believes that, if the case does hit the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts will consolidate all of them.

Or: “if you don’t succeed, try, try again.” President Trump stated:

“We are going to keep our country safe. So we’ll be doing something very rapidly, having to do with additional security for our country. You’ll be seeing that sometime next week.”

What went wrong? I think we’re starting to see.

Leftists, Demorats and the courts insist that politics play no part in the decisions handed down. I humbly suggest that politics play most every part in the decisions handed down if one is, of course, cognizant of history and the past actions of, say, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.

It is, considering history, acceptable for both of those persons to have stopped immigration for a period of time, referencing this post for Obama and this post for Jimmy Carter.

The only difference? Truly, the only difference?

Trump has an (R) behind his name.

BZ

 

 Share

Ninth Circuit upholds Washington judge’s ruling

Posted on by

Above, 9th DCA judges Richard Clifton, William Canby, Michelle Friedland.

The Ninth District Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco has just affirmed the ruling of Judge James Robart in the state of Washington regarding President Trump’s immigrant/refugee travel stay. That means the Trump travel stay has been held as unconstitutional and overturned.

From the NYPost.com:

Federal appeals court rules against Trump’s travel ban

by Bob Fredericks and Daniel Halper

A federal appeals court on Thursday unanimously upheld a judge’s order that slammed the brakes on President Trump’s temporary refugee and immigration ban.

The stunning 3-0 ruling by the 9th Circuit court of Appeals in San Francisco means the travel ban — which caused chaos and massive protests at airports across the US— won’t take effect.

The president responded with a tweet, promising to challenge the ruling.

“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” Trump said.

The case will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court.

The three judges who heard the government’s appeal of the order were Democratic appointees William Canby and Michelle Friedland and GOP appointee Richard Clifton.

On one hand I am surprised it took the 9th quite some time to craft its opinion. On the other hand, the opinion is completely in keeping with the Leftist nature of the court itself.

As you recall, it was lower-court Judge James Robart in the state of Washington who temporarily halted the stay after stating that Washington and Minnesota were likely to win their case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base.

The unanimous decision means that the case either goes to the Supreme Court or back to Robart’s court.

The full text of the Ninth Circuit’s decision can be found here.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative Christian organization that filed an appeals court brief in support of Trump’s ban, said:

This decision is disappointing and clearly puts our nation in grave danger. The fact is that President Trump clearly has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue this order. It is clear: radical Islamic terrorists are at war with America. President Trump’s order is a proper and constitutional way to protect America.

Jessica Levinson, law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said:

It’s really important that the opinion is unanimous because judges that were appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents came to the same legal conclusion. This is probably going to the Supreme Court, but I don’t think it’s going anywhere good for Donald Trump — even if the Supreme Court rules along party lines and is deadlocked, because the lower court’s decision would stand.

A portion of the Ninth’s opinion read:

To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay.

We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides.

Nevertheless we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.

I submit that a great deal on insight can be gleaned by listening to the tone and tenor of the three Ninth Circuit judges as illustrated here, making one wonder: were the arguments of the government cogent or had they not considered their audience?

It is no surprise that Demorats and Leftists nation-wide are thrilled to no end by the decision and will use it as a rallying cry to continue to obstruct President Trump and his administration on every level.

Apparently 8 USC 1182 makes little difference to federal courts as I wrote in my post here.

Additionally, have courts forgotten about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?

Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the:

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, may suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate.

Who last utilized this act? That would be Demorat President Jimmy Carter in 1979, 38 years ago, in order to specifically keep Iranians out of the United States. It would seem to me that application by Carter, according to the Ninth Circuit, focuses on a specific country and a specific religion. Not illegal then? Why not?

Carter did more. He made all Iranian students who were already in the United States, check in with the government. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979. Not illegal then? Why not?

I should care to point out that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an “applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution.”

Doing what I call the “logical extension,” would it not be reasonable to conclude that since the Koran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, all Muslims should be refused immigration to country? Just asking.

The argument provided by Judge Robart in his Washington opinion stated that refugees had essentially committed no acts of violence or terror in the US. Other than being a naked lie issued from an individual who is educated but apparently has learned little and lives in a bubble, I should also care to point out a sampling of such attacks in the US:

  • Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan went on a jihadi stabbing rampage at Ohio State.
  • In 2016, an Iraqi refugee Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan was accused of planning to bomb a local mall in Texas.
  • In September 2016, a Somali-Kenyan immigrant named Dahir Adan went on a stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
  • Somali refugee Mohamed Osman Mohamed was arrested for planning to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon back in 2010.
  • In 2012, Abdullatif Ali Aldosary, an Iraqi refugee, bombed a Social Security Office in Arizona.
  • Two Iraqi refugees were convicted for having aided Al-Qaeda in Iraq in killing American servicemen. These so-called “refugees,” lied on their applications, and as proof that the screening process is ineffective, were allowed entry without issue.
  • Both Boston Bombers, the Tsarnaev Brothers, were asylum-seekers fleeing Russia and living in Kyrgyzstan before entering the United States.

Everyone also conveniently forgets — Demorats and the federal courts in particular, that following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%). Among other provisions, it restricted non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror:

SEC. 306. RESTRICTION ON ISSUANCE OF VISAS TO NONIMMIGRANTS FROM COUNTRIES THAT ARE STATE SPONSORS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- No nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1101(a)(15)) shall be issued to any alien from a country that is a state sponsor of international terrorism unless the Secretary of State determines, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that such alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. In making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary of State shall apply standards developed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other appropriate United States agencies, that are applicable to the nationals of such states.

This once more profoundly illustrates the critical need to confirm the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch as a SCOTUS associate justice because, likely, this case and others will end there.

A final note: any 4-to-4 tie in the Supreme Court now does nothing more than uphold the decision of the applicable appeals court.

The US Constitution is not a proverbial suicide pact. We have the right to determine just who enters the country, as becoming a citizen is a privilege and not a right.

It is too early to fear. It is time, however, to continue to redouble our conservative efforts.

You can be assured the Demorats, Leftists and anarchists will.

BZ

 

 Share

Seattle judge halts Trump immigration stay

Posted on by

Just when you thought the US was beginning to turn and refrain from insisting upon self-implosion, in comes a federal judge to disabuse you of the notion.

From the WSJ.com:

Seattle Judge Used Broad Power to Halt Executive Order

by Ashby Jones and Jacob Gershman

Federal judges don’t often issue nationwide orders, but they have the power to do so

As a U.S. District Judge in Seattle, Judge James L. Robart typically handles federal cases affecting businesses and individuals in the western half of Washington state, an area roughly bordered by the Pacific Ocean in the west and the Cascade Range in the east.

But on Friday, Judge Robart expanded his reach, ordering a halt to President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on immigration and refugees. A federal appeals court early Sunday rejected a request from the Justice Department to immediately reinstate the order, asking for more court filings before it rules on the matter.

The district court ruling applies to the entire country. That makes it broader in scope than others that preceded in recent days. Orders issued in Brooklyn, Alexandria, Va., Boston and elsewhere were mostly “picking apart pieces of the executive order,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. Judge Robart’s order halts the Trump directive in its entirety.

Federal judges don’t often issue nationwide orders, but they have the power to do so, legal experts said.

A significant portion of the Bush-appointed federal judge’s ruling (Washington v. Trump, 2:17-cv-141) revolved around uniformity.

This emphasis on uniformity was key to Judge Robart’s order. He acknowledged the Trump Administration’s argument that any restraining order should be limited to the two plaintiff states — Washington and Minnesota. But Judge Robart rejected the request, concluding that a “partial implementation would undermine the constitutional imperative of a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and Congress’s instruction that the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.”

Lest we become unhinged like Leftists, let us also recall this.

Judge Robart borrowed language from Brownsville, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who in 2015 issued a nationwide injunction blocking the implementation of Obama administration policies that granted some protection to children of illegal immigrants.

In another high-profile nationwide order, a federal judge in Los Angeles in 2010 issued a nationwide injunction against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which banned openly gay men and women from serving in the military.

However, the opinion does tend to confirm what most of us already suspected: federal courts and judges damned near have absolute and imperial power. There is also another problem with “uniformity rulings.”

Nationwide injunctions have been criticized by legal scholars, who say they can encourage judge-shopping, and imbue a single litigant with outsize power.

“The idea is that you pick a judge who’s friendly, go to court, and stop a big government program before there’s been a trial, or before the judge even has an evidentiary record,” said Mr. Winkler.

Further:

Such orders can raise other complications, too. Other districts are free to make and implement their own nationwide orders, which might conflict with those already on the books.

Partly for that reason, nationwide orders are sometimes put on temporary hold by appeals courts, to stave off uncertainty that might otherwise ensue.

So what were the “interests” considered by Judge Robart in Washington? From ZeroHedge.com:

The DOJ appeal faces an uphill battle: “The Washington suit is so much more broad than anything else we’ve seen because it goes into the economic interests of the parties — that’s a very big development,” Hoffman said of a likely appeal by the federal government. “Appeals of temporary orders occur only in very, very extraordinary measures. I doubt it would be successful.” The reason why Robart was so quick with his decision is because he had the support of some of America’s largest tech companies.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the effects on his state included economic consequences for employers based there, including Microsoft Corp., Starbucks Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. Bellevue, Washington-based Expedia Inc. had about 1,000 customers with flight reservations in or out of the U.S. from the seven countries, he said.  Meanwhile, DOJ lawyer Michelle Bennett, arguing at Friday’s hearing, said the president was acting within the authority granted him by Congress and there was no financial harm to the states. The judge disagreed.

Ponder that for a moment. The judge considered that, because tech companies cannot find a sufficient number of propeller-heads in the United States, they were potentially subject to harm. That is a portion of the basis for his ruling. Because adequate programmers can apparently only source from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya and, for fuck’s sake, Sudan and Somalia?

Doing the logical extension, Robart is intimating that because US universities do not produce a sufficient number of young, qualified technological candidates for today’s computer mechanics and applied science, to refuse Syrian refugees would somehow damage Washington employers? Really? What kind of serious training does it take to yield a barista who knows how to make a machine sound like it’s hocking a loogie into your paper drink cup?

A Boston federal court originally supported Trump but Robart’s decision, being most recent, applies in terms of chronological supremacy.

Map of federal district courts of appeal throughout the United States, by district number.

Here is what will occur: the case will wind itself into the Ninth District Court of Appeals in San Francisco, historically the most leftist federal appeals entity in the Milky Way, to include Andromeda and Orion as well. The 9th is also, historically, the most overturned — at various points up to 90%.

On Sunday, as expected, the Ninth DCA allowed a continuance of Trump’s travel stay suspension. From the WashingtonPost.com:

9th Circuit Court declines to quickly reinstate travel ban

by Matt Zapotosky and Robert Barnes

A federal appeals court on Sunday ruled that President Trump’s controversial immigration order will remain suspended for the time being, allowing those previously banned from coming to the United States at least another day to get here.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit preserves a lower judge’s order to temporarily halt the ban — and based on a schedule the court outlined, the stop will remain in place at least until sometime on Monday. The Justice Department said it would not elevate the dispute to the Supreme Court before that.

Pundits and scholars are united in opining: Sooner or later the issue will have to reach the US Supreme Court.

In the meantime, a number of the suits against the Trump stay have some serious legal problems themselves. From Breitbart.com:

Travesty of Legal Errors in Immigration EO Lawsuit

by Ken Klukowski

Washington and Minnesota’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order (EO) showcases a cavalcade of legal errors.

First, the lawsuit could have been dismissed by the district court (or the court of appeals) in whole or in part for lack of jurisdiction. Second, the district court did not give the required legal reasoning in its order to justify the TRO. Third, the court had no business enjoining the executive order nationwide, instead of just in the two states. But fourth, once the district court issued the TRO, the appeals court had no authority to touch any other aspect of this legal challenge until it reaches the next stage of litigation.

But the please note the following.

The Supreme Court has reiterated countless times that when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction in a lawsuit, the only power the court has is to explain why it cannot claim jurisdiction, then dismiss the case.

That’s what should have happened for many of the claims in this lawsuit, rather than taking the extreme step of issuing a TRO.

Which leads to another problem with the TRO: Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to “describe the injury” suffered by the plaintiff. Robart claimed that Washington and Minnesota had carried their burden of showing they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their lawsuit, but never says which ones. The states obviously cannot succeed on a claim they have no standing to raise in the first place. Robart failed to provide the legal reasoning for his decision.

But having made those errors, there is nothing the Justice Department can do until the TRO is superseded by a preliminary injunction (PI). A TRO expires within 14 days of being issued, unless another event overtakes it first.

As indicated prior, there is a fundamental bottom line.

Given the liberal makeup of the Ninth Circuit, however, the Justice Department faces an uphill fight in San Francisco. More likely this issue is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning that President Trump’s EO—and immigration as a whole—could become a major topic of discussion in the confirmation process of the Supreme Court’s incoming ninth justice, Neil Gorsuch.

And therein lies the rub. You see now why holding SCOTUS is critical, absolutely critical for each side of the aisle?

President Trump, of course, does himself and his administration no favors when he fails to keep his mouth shut or his fingers off Twitter. He wrote in response to Robart’s decision in part (above): “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

Beyond unendearing yourself to your enemies, similar acts tend to make life more difficult than necessary. President Trump is already beginning to encounter the DC roadblocks that foundational documents term “checks and balances.”

That said, Judge James Robart 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. On the other hand, truthfully, he is not obligated in any way to do so.

What’s occurring presently is legal blowback from any number of issues, to include the hasty and ill-considered implementation of the order, and the failure to consider the issue of green card visas.

I go back to the topic of SCOTUS and — now — the vastly greater importance of Judge Neil Gorsuch. You can be guaranteed, with no reservations, that Demorats will filibuster the nomination of Gorsuch.

Conversely, any Republican — repeat, ANY Republican — who fails to get his or her arse in line with the nuclear option must be dealt with harshly and without remorse. They must be excised like the worst offensive tick, parasite or invertebrate.

Here is why: with Gorsuch uninstalled or stalled, the Supreme Court remains impaneled at the eight count. It is easy to foresee a straight split on the issue — four pro and four con.

When that happens, the lower court ruling stands.

BZ

 

 Share

Trump’s immigration halt in place

Posted on by

People are saying Trump’s act is illegal.

No, it’s not.

President Trump is following through with any number of his campaign promises. To wit:

Following a recent judge’s ruling on the ban, Homeland Security responds:

“President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the US government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety.”

The judge’s ruling said this:

Please examine Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792.

CBS News reported:

Leftists, anarchists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots conveniently forget that Barack Obama banned all Iraqi refugees from entering the United States in 2011. No issue, no problem. From ABCNews.com, this quote:

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.

Plus, from the WashingtonExaminer.com:

President Obama has barred huge groups of potentially dangerous immigrants from entering the United States at least six times, undercutting his claim that barring Muslims from terrorist countries as Donald Trump has proposed is un-American.

In his first ban, according to a search of White House records, Obama instituted a ban on “immigrants or non-immigrants” covered by a larger United Nations travel ban. He also included those on an economic sanctions list. Most countries were Muslim.

He cited the very same section of law that many critics of his policies have asked him to use, “section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” It says, “Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president 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 non-immigrant’s or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

He used the same provision five other times, one more in 2011, twice in 2012 and twice in 2014. In those, he targeted people aiding Iran, Syria, Crimea, and those involved in war crimes.

Still, in his latest tirade against Trump‘s call for a ban on Muslims from terror nations, Obama said such bans violate the American way. In reaction to the Orlando terror attack, Trump said, “When I’m elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats.” Obama ripped him. “That’s not the America we want,” he said. “It doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals. It will make us less safe.”

White House documents also show that former President Bill Clinton issued six immigrant bans; George W. Bush six immigrant bans; and former President Ronald Reagan four. And in 1980, former President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians after Tehran seized the U.S. embassy.

Below are Obama‘s actions:

— July 25, 2011. Barred those under a UN travel ban, or who broke 29 executive orders covering transactions with terrorists.
— Aug. 4, 2012. Banned anybody involved in war crimes, or just about any other crime including human rights violations.
— April 23, 2012. Barred those helping Syria or Iran, or involved in human rights abuses for those governments.
— May 1, 2012. Another block on those helping Iran and Syria.
— April 3, 2014. Banned anyone known to threaten South Sudan.
— March 6, 2014 . Barred entry of those claiming government authority in the Crimea region of Ukraine, presumably on behalf of Moscow.

Read More: (Link: www.washingtonexaminer.com)

Those seven enumerated countries referred to by Trump are the same countries previously identified by Barack Hussein Obama as problematic in nature for the United States of America.

Republican Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas stated:

“It’s simply wrong to call the President’s executive order concerning immigration and refugees a ‘religious test’ of any kind. I doubt many Arkansans or Americans more broadly object to taking a harder look at foreigners coming into our country from war-torn nations with known terror networks; I think they’re wondering why we don’t do that already.”

Let the battle of national sovereignty vs open borders officially commence. Leftists and anarchists finally come out and state what they want: “no borders, no nation, fuck deportation.”

Correct. Leftists want no borders. No actual nation called the United States. I thank them for being, at least this time, honest.

In the interest of keeping national sovereignty with an eye towards self-determination and self-interest as well as national security, President Trump signed an executive order on Friday the 27th which banned Syrian refugees indefinitely and immigration from Syria, Yemen, Somalis, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Iran for 90 days. Those countries were sourced referencing materials and incidents identified by the Obama administration.

Subsequently, Leftists, Demorats, anarchists and the American Media Maggots are losing their minds. Not that they were particularly well-assembled in the first place.

The Usual Suspects in the EU, Germany and France — Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande — are and will be doing their level best to demolish Trump’s decision. I suspect they are shocked they may be holding the refugee bag themselves only — but rightly so. They were the ones who decided to accept the refugee hordes in the first place, going so far as to ask for them. The true creator of the refugee problem is Barack Obama. Perhaps therein lies their umbrage.

Yes, these countries are predominantly Muslim — not for lack of trying by Christianity but because Christians are simply killed — as it is Islam that wishes to convert or kill the rest of the planet, and it is Islam that is directly linked to terror events aimed at the US and other western countries. The point at issue is the threat and danger represented by these nations. That they are mostly Muslim is a link but not the primary point. If Islam were not involved but they were still as dangerous the threat would still exist. If you merely changed the word “Catholic” to “Muslim,” for example — everything else being the same — I would strongly support Trump’s executive order.

Let’s not forget that ISIS and Islam has told us that its goal is to infiltrate Westernized countries like those of the EU and the United States. Terror groups are up front in terms of

At odds with damned near the entire state, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare in California, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence said:

“In light of attempts by jihadist groups to infiltrate fighters into refugee flows to the West, along with Europe’s tragic experience coping with this problem, the Trump administration’s executive order on refugees is a common-sense security measure to prevent terror attacks on the homeland.”

Additional irony was provided by Fornicalia’s newly-minted attorney general, Xavier Becerra, who has apparently been unconscious for the last eight years.

“Justice in America doesn’t live or die on the stroke of one man’s pen regardless of how high his office.”

If that isn’t remarkably obtuse, I don’t know what is.

Concern for our borders and who we allow into the country isn’t new. Let’s listen to the God of Demorats, William Jefferson Clinton, in 1994.

Bill Clinton limiting immigration? Obama barring Muslims not just once? What about Hillary Clinton who, it was revealed by Wikileaks, admitted that Muslim refugees could not properly be vetted?

“They can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, Jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.”

What about James Comey who said they could not be vetted?

A question for Leftists: if Islam has nothing to do with terrorism as you claim, why would a ban on immigrants from dangerous Muslim countries promote recruitment for ISIS and provoke terror attacks?

Another important question for Leftists: why do Muslim “refugees” flee to Christian/Western countries and not to their fellow Muslim countries? Let’s listen to a Muslim answer Katie Hopkins.

Leftists and those who wish to do harm to the United States, up in arms over President Trump’s common sense EO, cannot believe that 1. Donald Trump means to put America’s interests first and, 2. He is doing precisely what he said he would.

Try reading the order and understanding what it does and doesn’t do.

Leftists, Demorats, anarchists and the American Media Maggots don’t want you to understand that immigration to the United States was essentially halted between 1924 to 1965, via the Immigration Act of 1924 (otherwise known as the Johnson-Reed Act). The act provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It completely excluded immigrants from Asia. This was changed in the 60s by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which opened up numbers of immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe.

Make no mistake: Islam is a global cancer that is little-understood by the bulk of the planet. It means to — and tells us this everyday, in the clear, verbally and in writing — convert infidels to Islam or kill them. It removes freedoms, rights, oppresses women and children and continues to slaughter infidels, Kaffirs and each other in horrendous ways. I have said for years: “Islam is as Islam does.” It is a common sense axiom that would be applicable to any and every religion acting as does Islam in terms of violence and death.

Refugees in America are already responsible for acts of terror in the US.

One Finnish man seems to understand the danger of unvetted refugees.

Already, in the United States, the majority of Muslims believe Sharia law should take precedent over our own laws — and 60% of young Muslims in the US are more loyal to Islam than the United States. Please watch:

Another Muslim man explains the dangers of unvetted refugee individuals and the concern he has involving Sharia law.

Why is all of this important or necessary? Here is one critical reason, from ABCNews.com:

The question comes down to this: is the stay on immigrants an issue of threats posed, or is it a matter of Islam?

Because here is what isn’t happening.

There is not a ban on individuals from Indonesia. Why is that important? Because Indonesia is the area which contains the greatest number of Muslims on the planet (around 62%), much greater than the Middle East.

Further, about 13% of the world’s Muslims, or 199.4 million out of up to 1.6 billion, live in those seven countries, according to a 2015 Pew Research Report, “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050.” Trump’s EO only impacts one of every eight Muslims worldwide.

Six of the seven countries to which the temporary visa issuance block applies were designated as “state sponsors of terrorism” or “countries of concern” by previous Democrat administrations, most Obama’s — also Jimmy Carter’s. Only one — Iran in 1984 — was designated by a Republican administration.

CAIR — a Muslim terror-tied group in the US — is already doing its level best to instigate lawsuits and foment upheaval and chaos against President Trump — who is attempting to do nothing more than protect the United States of America.

Remember: this emphasizes once again that the Demorats, Leftists, anarchists, the American Media Maggots and even a number of Republicans like John McCain and Lindsay Graham have no interest whatsoever in telling you the truth, revealing highly-important information, referencing history or placing issues in context. Where were Little Chuckie Schumer’s tears in 2015 and 2011 due to Obama’s actions? Where were McCain and Graham’s objections in those years because of Mr Obama’s declarations?

It’s all part of what I consider to be one of BZ’s Conventions: never let facts, history, logic, rationality, proportion and common sense get in the way of a good emotive and frakked-up decision.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the persons who were complaining about illegals who don’t belong in this country had as much concern about the quality of medical service provided to our veterans, the plight of our homeless veterans, and taking care of our own mentally-challenged and poor first.

BZ

P.S.

There was a recent shooting (Sunday, 1-29) at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada, with six persons killed. In steps BZ’s Terror Axiom: the longer authorities conceal the nature of actors in terror incidents the more likely they are Muslims. We know two of the suspects are Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir  Plus, the suspects yelled “Allahu akbar” as they shot people. That is called a clue. One must read almost the entire article to find this highly-important bit of information.

 

 Share