Islamic jihadis unlawfully discriminate against the Infidels they murder, but that is not important for this appeals court. There are two hard choices: either keep out some harmless people, or let in some harmful people. For years we were told that we had to let in the harmful people, or else we were “racist” and “bigoted” and “xenophobic.” Trump is the first to have the guts to grasp the nettle and say No, we’re going to protect the American people, and if that means some harmless people are kept out, that’s a shame, but it’s better than the alternative. This shouldn’t even be an issue, and the fact that it is shows how far the Left has degenerated into anti-Americanism.
“U.S. court says Trump travel ban unlawfully discriminates against Muslims,” by Lawrence Hurley, Reuters, February 16, 2018:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries violates the U.S. Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday in another legal setback for the policy.
FILE PHOTO: Protesters gather outside the Trump Building at 40 Wall St. to take action against America’s refugee ban in New York City, U.S., March 28, 2017. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson/File PhotoThe Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on a 9-4 vote, became the second federal appeals court to rule against the ban, finding that the Republican president’s own words demonstrated that bias against Muslims was the basis of the policy.
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the ban, put in place by Trump by presidential proclamation in September, to go into effect while litigation challenging it continues.
The 4th Circuit ruling went further than the earlier decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the ban violated federal immigration law but did not address whether it also violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court already has said it will consider both issues in deciding the legality of the ban in the coming months.
The justices are due in April to hear arguments over the ban and issue a ruling by the end of June.
“Examining official statements from President Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the proclamation itself, we conclude that the proclamation is unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam,” 4th Circuit Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote in the ruling.
The travel ban challengers “offer undisputed evidence of such bias: the words of the President,” Gregory wrote, noting Trump’s “disparaging comments and tweets regarding Muslims.”
As a candidate, Trump promised “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” The court also took note of the fact that Trump in November shared on Twitter anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British political figure.
Trump’s policy, the third version of the ban that he has issued since taking office in January 2017, blocks entry into the United States of most people from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Trump has said the policy is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants.
U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said the 4th Circuit ruling “does not alter the status quo, and we look forward to ultimate resolution of these issues by the Supreme Court.”
“Nothing is more important to the President and the Attorney General (Jeff Sessions) than the safety and security of all Americans,” Kupec added. “The President’s lawful order remains critical to accomplishing that goal.”
In the main dissenting opinion, Judge Paul Niemeyer said the courts should be deferential to the president on national security matters. Niemeyer criticized the court’s majority, saying his colleagues applied “a novel legal rule that provides for the use of campaign-trail statements to recast later official acts of the president.”…
Stacy Girl says
Chicken and egg. They are being targeted because their countries are drug exporting terrorist havens, or because they made these countries exactly that? Now they come to the west expand their industry.
CRUSADER says
Islamism is definitely the threat which has taken on the level of infiltration, undermining, and destructiveness, as International Communism had in its gambit for power and control.
Sebastian Gorka has known this. John Guandolo understands this threat.
Jihad | Understanding the Threat lays out the facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2yXkndEDwE
UTT (UnderstandingtheThreat) President John Guandolo and UTT Vice President Chris Gaubatz discuss the threat from the Global Islamic Movement.
UTT was created to be a National Security organization to go after the global islamic movement. This video is a compilation from numerous media appearances by Guandolo and Gaubatz. John Guandolo is a former FBI Special Agent, combat veteran Marine, co-author of “Sharia the Threat to America” and author of “Raising a Jihadi Generation”. Chris Gaubatz went undercover inside Hamas in the United States doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in 2008 and during his work with CAIR retrieved over 12,000 documents from their headquarters in Washington, DC revealing CAIR is involved in criminal activity including fraud, and supports terrorist groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda.
On the Sean Hannity Show John Guandolo told listeners we are witnessing the rise of the Global Islamic Movement. American leaders are dismissing a massive threat. The enemy seeks to overthrow governments and implement an Islamic State under sharia. On the Alan Colmes Show, Alan tried to tell the audience CAIR is a “moderate” organization but was rebuked because the evidence in the US v HLF trial (Dallas 2008) revealing CAIR was created by the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee which is Hamas in the United States.
On Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler, John Guandolo told viewers FBI Director James Comey should be fired because the case against Hillary Clinton was not just about an email server. This case was about highly classified information being passed – intentionally or not – to foreign governments. In either case, the law was broken.
Chris Gaubatz testified before Senator Ted Cruz’s committee in June 2016 and defined UTT’s mission and said “in order to defeat the global islamic movement, we must understand the enemy.”
When John Guandolo was on Fox News he said “There were clear markers laid down that this was coming” referring to the Muslim Brotherhood’s revolution in January 2011, which was a predictable event.
On the Tomi Lahren show John Guandolo explained that the Islamic Threat has merged with the hard Left Marxist Movement in the United States and can be likened to an insurgency. Therefore, the problem must be solved at the local level by citizens and law enforcement.
On the Erick Stakelbeck Show John Guandolo reveals that the U.S. government has been significantly penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood jihadis.
“Today we face a dangerous and imminent threat from the Global Islamic Movement which is waging total war against the West. A kinetic, economic, social, psychological, spiritual, and informational war.”
Chris Gaubatz appeared on the Curt Schilling Show and discussed the Islamic Movement and the attempted bombing in Germany at a Christmas market by a 12 year old boy.
Look to Europe.
As Europe goes, so goes the U.S. The tactics used there are coming here to the United States. The only way to guarantee paradise in Islam is through jihad and becoming a Martyr. That is the highest form of worship in Islam. The last few generations grew up without the caliphate on their mind. It seems like ancient history.
But there is 1400 years of history to reflect on.
This is nothing new from a historical perspective.
On the Erick Stakelbeck show, John Guandolo discusses the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood outside Cairo, Egypt by Hassan al Banna, with the purpose of establishing a caliphate under sharia (Islamic Law).
Their strategy is to get our leaders to do their bidding for them.
For the film produced by The Blaze, John Guandolo details the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the religious, political, media, and educational sectors of our society. “They will win the entire war if we don’t get off the mark and engage them where they are engaging us.”
In an insurgency the focus has to be at the local level. We have to weed these guys out of the community.
“War planners must begin all analysis of the enemy with who the enemy says they are and why they are fighting.”
All of our enemies state the are muslims waging jihad in the cause of allah to establish an islamic state under sharia.
Its time to put freedom back on the offensive where it belongs.
Go to
http://www.understandingthethreat.com
Get your copy of
“Raising A Jihadi Generation”
Andy says
TOO HAPPY AND TOO WHITE TO BE CAPITAL OF CULTURE!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvNFh1vzOaE
Andy says
The Truth About the Black Panther Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSe1tbWicys
mortimer says
In World War II, America was concerned about German spies and saboteurs wandering around the country looking for targets.
THIS IS NO DIFFERENT. JIHADISTS ARE TERRORISTS LOOKING FOR TARGETS.
Guy Forester says
Yes, and when the saboteurs landed, they ended up with a quick trip to old sparky and were never able to become a threat. What a difference a few generations makes.
VRWC member77 says
Once again you can target the blame squarely at two limp wristed COWARDS mitch LIMP mcconnell and paul ryan. These two gutless wonders could lead the way to impeach one of theses seditious leftist America hating judges and make an example. But they won’t because like the democrats, they have an irrational hatred of Trump………..AND THEY”RE LIMP ____ COWARDS.
Terry Gain says
With respect, this is very different and much more of a threat. The most serious threat to America is not terrorism but the soft Jihad which, if successful, will result in much civil strife and the eventual imposition of sharia. – which these idiot judges unknowingly support.
Guy Forester says
I am not so sure about unknowingly, but certainly at the very least, useful idiots.
mortimer says
If TERROR-EXPORTING Islamic paradises REFUSE TO CRACK DOWN ON THE TERRORISTS within their borders and/or they refuse to STOP TRAINING and FINANCING TERRORISTS and/or if they REFUSE to cease THREATENING THE UNITED STATES with TERRORIST ACTION, then those countries should be considered ENEMY COUNTRIES, HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES.
THIS IS POLITICS, YOU DUMMIES! (How can a judge be that dumb?)
IT’S THE IDEOLOGY, STUPID!
clap says
The judge isn’t dumb, he’s on Soros’ payroll.
scott says
These judges should be ignored then disbarred.
Emilie Green says
These judges obviously need some “up close and personal” experience with the Muslim mindset. Until that happens we’ll get rulings like this one against Trump’s common sense approach.
Consider this 2015 story when a liberal judge got that up close and personal experience,
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/liberal-judge-behind-racial-profiling-ban-is-victim-of-brutal-black-robbery-and-beating-video/
From one of the comments,
Funny how they are against it until they are the ones affected and all of the sudden “it was three black guys in masks with guns”.
CRUSADER says
It’s the same with crime and Neighborhood Watch….
or narcotics or rape and Prevention Programs…
People are such individualists that they see others in a collective,
as individuals having their rights trampled on just because they are
lumped as a group.
NEVERTHELESS, once it happens to them or close to them or to
somebody they care more deeply about, then they tend to start to
think otherwise, but it is a slow and gradual transition if they are fed
the correct dose of truth and fact.
In Neighborhood Security Watch, folks in a residential community will
think NSW is Big Brother-ish imposition and unnecessary. They don’t
understand the “Broken Windows” concept. Fix the broken windows,
paint out the graffiti, and deal with the smaller before it creeps into bigger.
UNTIL they begin to “GET IT”…. Yet, by then it has metastasized.
scott says
But we can`t speak out against moslems because then we are hate mongers. So they sneak murderous terrorists in under our noses.
Phil Copson says
“…. The court also took note of the fact that Trump in November shared on Twitter anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British political figure…..”
Note the repetition of this lie, intended to convey to the reader/listener that “an individual or group has deliberately created videos – the contents of which are not to be believed, and are probably fake – with the intention of stirring-up anti-muslim sentiment, and that Donald Trump then circulated them for the same reason….”
FACT: the videos were not created by Britain First – (or by anybody) – with a prior motive.
They are/were genuine footage of muslims behaving appallingly. If this leads the viewer to form a negative view of muslims, the fault lies with the persons appearing in the film-clips, not with those who circulate them.
Or maybe if it rains on his day-off, Roger Gregory wants revenge on the weather-forecaster ?
CRUSADER says
‘Trump in November shared on Twitter anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British political figure’
WHO?
So, this is a lie? Just as 18 mass school shootings have occurred in the USA so far in 2018?
All fiction?
gravenimage says
President Trump re-Tweeted videos by Britain First. They contained accurate footage of Muslims desecrating a church, throwing people off a roof, and assaulting a boy on crutches. The original footage is from Syria, Egypt, and the Netherlands, and all appear to be accurate.
pragmatist says
The astonishing thing about this incident was that all the ‘do-gooder’ Trump haters were more outraged by the re-tweeting than the appalling content of the videos themselves. Strange priorities some people have!
mummymovie says
DJT should have just lowered the refugee admissions cap down to zero, which he would have been acting fully within his executive powers to do.
Childless liberal morons will not stop until the U.S. is drowning in muslims just like Germany, France, or Sweden, and future generations of Americans are completely sold down the river. They hate us; and even if the didn’t, It is more important for them to feel sanctimonious and good about themselves than it is to protect our children and grandchildren from the threat of islam and the ever-advancing hijra, jihad and seemingly inevitable islamization of our country and the rest of the West.
Curse them, and damn them to hell.
CRUSADER says
Lowering refugee admissions ….?
But that doesn’t account for the immigrants from such countries.
Not all are claiming refuge.
Quite a few are claiming to be chained to previous family “members” who have come into the USA…
Brian Hoff says
ICE would deport first lady mother and father for being hete illegal.
Don McKellar says
Much of this problem comes from this:
“Just days after Donald Trump introduced his controversial travel ban, Rudy Giuliani bragged about the role he played in helping to craft it, telling Fox News that the president had called for a “Muslim ban” and asked him to find a way to do it legally.”
That idiot Rudy Giuliani really poured gasoline on everything.
Gene says
This does not matter. A Muslim ban on immigration would actually be legal, as it does not violate the Constitution. However, this is not a Muslim ban.
Don McKellar says
True, it actually is legal. However, Rudy’s ridiculous comment served to galvanize the left-fascist Obama judges who now do everything they can to gum things up. It was repeated and magnified endlessly by MSM.
gravenimage says
It’s not as though Leftists would have welcomed this if Giuliani had said nothing. I’m not sure scapegoating him makes sense, even if his was not the best phrasing.
Terry Gain says
Please McKellar. Giuliani is a patriot. He’s hardly to blame for the machinations of idiot leftist judges.
Voytek Gagalka says
This is madness. What in hell “religion” has anything to do with this ban? Or rather, should “religion” be used as justification for terror, murder in the name of “religion”? For me, the only interesting question would be to know how much that “judge” Roger Gregory (which is his last name and which is his first?) received recently from “zakat” Islamic resources to come to his outrageously idiotic ruling? As they say, in everything: follow the money!
CRUSADER says
Shows how the Left is a willing tool for Muslim Brotherhood expansion plans.
http://www.UnderstandingTheThreat.com
Ex FBI Agent Explains Travel Ban – Counter Terrorism Expert …
Video ▶ 29:21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq93cQg9-j0
Ex FBI Agent John Guandolo explains the rationale behind Trump’s executive order on immigration …
PunJabber says
The key is not “religion” but “region”. However, it is one particular religion that puts the “L” in the region.
Troybeam says
Every President before Trump put a travel ban on Islam, there’s a reason for it.
The liberal judges put in by Carter, Clinton, Obama insured that all republican presidents would have a battle enacting the same bans that they themselves have done.
Time to support President Trump, in one year he has done more for America than any other President even with it being an uphill battle. Islam is not America’s friend, time to realize that.
Gene says
Even if the ‘ban’ was a Muslim ban, it does not violate the US Constitution. The 6th Amendment states the following: “. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This ban applies only to the holding of public office by people who are legally authorized to hold the office. Prohibiting the immigration of any non-US citizen is allowed. Further, there is no other test relating to religion.
The 1st Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .” This Amendment applies only to the US and people already living here. It is a restriction on the power of Government, not an ‘immigration’ test. It has no affect until after someone enters the US and cannot be enforced against foreign countries. This is why is cannot be used to force the US Government to allow persons ascribing to dangerous belief systems into the US.
Any prohibition against the immigration of any person or group that is an enemy of the United States, its people, or the Constitution is proper. The teaching of Islam and the Sharia legal system are directly opposed to democracy and the US Constitution.
Guy Forester says
You know what your problem is? You can read and understand plain English. You apparently have not had to endure a “higher education” that would let you find all sorts of reasons to ignore what your eyes and brain tell you.
🙂
Westman says
Since when do aliens have rights under the US constitution?
Terry Gain says
Such rights are acquired only if aliens step foot on U. S. soil and aliens have no right to enter America. Islam is sedition. Muslims do not have any right to destroy America. Leftists are brain dead.
Jack Holan says
How many times will these activist Judges throw what is the purview of the President @POTUS before the US Supreme Court @SCOTUS and have their tuches handed to them. Besides if President Trump ordered all Muslims from XYZ Country are barred but Christians Jews and all others are allowed in that would be discrimination. Where were all these activist Judges when Obama’s Refugee Program from Muslim Countries allowed for 99% Muslims 1% Christians at most and no Jews (dont kid yourself Jews live in these Countries 80 were rescued by a Canadian businessman.). So , the King has no clothes as the Leftists Islamists and Activist Judges show it isn’t about discrimination, inequity, Immigration or Constitutional Law not President Trump. It is about these hypocrites with an Agenda of reverse discrimination and pushing the envelope.
CRUSADER says
Remember how the Lead Up to US Civil War took place in the courts?
Well….for anything to develop, change, improve, etc…it has to go through phases….
It’ll be BIG if the court system can bolster impingement upon Islamism and Stealth Jihad and Creeping Shariah….justifying REAL ACTION.
Partly why ACTforAmerica focusses on Legislation, etc…
http://www.ACTforAmerica.org/issues
Eur says
Sharia discriminates against non muslims.
Jack Holan says
True. It’s a pity we can’t get that concept through the thick skulls of fellow Non-Believers cTheyd probably cling to their fantasy 2 seconds before their head is separated from their body.
Walter Sieruk says
The need for a national travel ban concerning all those unvetted Muslim migrants who desire to enter the United States of America is very important. This may be yet better explained by one of the fables of Aesop which is entitled THE FARMER AND THE VIPER. So here it is “Once in ancient Greece there was a farmer outside on a very cold winter day walking in if field to make sure that everything is in order and as it should be. The farmer came upon a half-froze viper about to die from the bitter cold. The kind yet foolish farmer took pity on the viper and in an action of kindness put it his is vest jacket to warms and up and thus save its life. The viper warned up revived and then bit farmer through the vest jacket. So the kind but foolish farmer died a slow painful death in awful agony because he felt sorry of the viper and saved it life.” The point to this fable is the no amount of kindness will chance an evil and dangerous nature.
So it may be with those many Muslim immigrants who want to enter the USA. It only takes of few jihadist/vipers inflect jihad terrorism of awful murderous disaster on different cities of this nation.
Walter Sieruk says
Concerning the security and safety of America people as well as peaceful visitors this nation and this topic of a travel ban from terrorist hotspot countries in important. This subject had been, somewhat, explained in the book, by Robert Spencer which his entitled THE COMPLETE INFIDEL’S GUIDE TO THE KORAN. For on page 230 it informs the reader “Immigration. Since there is no completely reliable way to tell any given Muslim believer takes the Koran’s dictates about warfare against Infidels literally, immigration of Muslims into the United States should be halted.”
In addition, on page 232 of the same book read “The willful blindness of Western leaders threatens us all, and the very survival of free societies.” Therefore, First, it should not be forgotten that most of the jihadist al Qaeda operatives who were the hijackers and mass murderers came from Saudi Arabia . Second, don’t let them fool you, the many apologists for Islam is will endeavor to set up a smokescreen to hide the reality of the truth about the violence and deadly essence of Islam by making the bogus claim that the al Qaeda operatives mass murderer on 9/11 were not real Muslims and that they were breaking the laws of the Qu ‘ran by their violence and deadly actions.” The apologists for Islam will further make the totally false claim that “Those terrorists on 9/11 were only criminals who hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam for Politics.” Those outrageously false claims are weak attempt of damage control for the image of Islam to the West. For the “holy book” of Islam the Qu ‘ran. For the Qu ‘ran instruct in Sura 9:111. Muslims who are engaging the jihad that “The believer’s fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain ,they kill and are killed “ That’s just what happened on September 11, 2001 the jihadists of al Qaeda “killed and were killed” in those 9/11 jihad attacks against both humankind and America. The Quran also teaches in Sura 9:123 to that jihad –minded Muslims behavior towards non-Muslims “let them find harshness in you…” Those Islamic attacks on 9/11 were indeed very “harsh.” As Sura 2:191 instructs “kill the disbeliever wherever you find them.” That’s a very strange kind of “peaceful religion” if there ever was one. Just to site one more out on many from the Qu ‘ran about the instruction of deadly violence is Sura 47:4. Which instructs “Whenever you encounter unbelievers strike off their heads until you make a great slaughter among them …” Let’s face it, using jet planes a missiles as those jihadist/ Muslims did of September 11, sure made a greater “slaughter among them” then sword can. Wake up West to the actual nature of Islam before it’s too late.
Timothy says
When I look at the judge in the picture I see a man who has been brainwashed.
Brainwashed by the law school he studied at to get his law degree. A college atmosphere of progressivism.
brane pilot says
The Constitution is explicit in giving unconditional authority to the POTUS to dictate who can, and cannot, enter the USA. The Constitution does not place any boundaries or conditions whatsoever on this authority.
These so-called ‘justices’ are not practicing law. They are practicing progressive identity politics.
Wellington says
Actually, it is not the Constitution that gives explicit authority to the President to exclude foreigners from America but rather a 1952 law, the Immigration and Nationality Act (which has been amended since then). Section 212(f) is the key paragraph here because it gives the President the right to exclude any foreigner he wants from America and for as long as he wants.
So, what we have here by the Fourth Circuit is more fake law, this time by way of trying to invoke the First Amendment freedom of religion provision for foreigners. This bogus attempt by the Fourth Circuit will be overturned by the Supreme Court but it should serve as a warning sign that liberal judges (and this would include many RINOs) have ever increasingly been inclined to legislate from the bench rather than just applying the law. Yes, the less conservative a judge is, watch out, because what will be forthcoming often times is the mere opinion of a judge being declared the law, i.e., usurpation of the legislative prerogative by the judiciary. This is an ominous development and if enough of such inappropriate judges are put into place so that they become the majority in the federal judicial system, especially at the Supreme Court level, we could even see that Orwellian distinction between free speech and hate speech instituted which would, in effect, gut the First Amendment freedom of speech provision.
All should remember that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means and this is why the “strict construction approach” to the Constitution rather than the excessively trouble-making “living, breathing approach” should ALWAYS be adopted if true freedom and sanity across the board are to remain features of the USA. I would close here by asserting that liberty dodged a metaphorical bullet when Trump was elected over Clinton because had Clinton been elected POTUS she would have nominated liberal judges who would make a distinction between free speech and hate speech. Clinton herself said she would do this. Freedom hangs by a thread right now in the US and one knows or should know that the true enemy of freedom in America is not Islam, Mo’s creed being nothing more than a secondary enemy, but rather modern liberalism, call it leftism if you like, which is the true menace to liberty prevailing in America.
Westman says
None of these court-law decisions even make economic sense. What do you get when jobs are given to temporary imported workers, there are not enough jobs for the nationals, and too many imigrants need welfare to survive? Venezuala. Think it can’t happen here?
Wellington says
True, Westman, but lefties don’t care about economic sense (unless it’s about their own portfolio). For lefties, ideology trumps (excuse the pun) virtually everything where society at large is concerned.
Bezelel says
The “Living breathing” mindset in my opinion is nothing but an excuse for legislating from the bench. I’ve had leftists try to pass that off as a “matter of fact” in a conversation.
Wellington says
Leftists, Bezelel, try to pass off a lot of opinions as fact, for instance that Bush 43 is an idiot (he certainly is not, actually has a terrific memory, IMHO is smarter than Obama, and I say this as someone who has several reservations about Bush 43) and that Obama was, essentially, the Second Coming (he certainly was not; actually, Obama would be my “candidate” for possessing the most overrated intellect in the Western world in our time, examples of which would be his attributing to Islam many accomplishments that Islam is actually not responsible for but rather others like the Chinese, Indians in the Subcontinent and Byzantine Christians functioning within the Islamic world, mixing up Memorial Day with Veterans Day, asserting, quite incorrectly, that Abraham Lincoln was a founder of the Republican Party—no he was not, he remained a Henry Clay Whig for more than two years after the Republican Party was founded—and, my personal favorite, Obama thinking that “Austrian” is a language {yes, you can Google this}).
In short, when dealing with a leftist, just assume they are factually challenged. Also, and I state this with reservation in my heart because I think the truth of the past can be found out nine times out of ten if one is diligent enough, nonetheless lefties tend to prove time and time again that Napoleon may very well have been correct when he asserted that history is a pack of lies agreed upon. The continued adulation of that phony, Mahatma Gandhi, and the still continued denigration of Pope Pius XII, who saved more Jews than any other person in history, inclines me, against what I want to believe, what I want to think is the case, that the Emperor was correct after all.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Wellington.
Wellington says
You are welcome, gravenimage. Take good care, my special friend.
gravenimage says
🙂
herbert says
The majority opinion is PC run amok in my view. Either the ban is within the power of the executive branch or it is not. The Court has no power to enjoin the ban regardless of their personal views and their personal views are quite irrelevant.
Guy Forester says
I would like to hear from someone that has experience in Constitutional law. My opinion is that DJT has the authority to reject this “court order” as security issues are not the purview of the courts. DJT needs to dump Sessions and get an AG that will support him. Same with the solicitor general.
The 4th and 9th need to be told these orders are null and void. Anyone sent by the courts to serve any kind of injunction will be blocked from interfering with any immigration officer. Tell the judges to come on down and try serving the papers themselves if they care to. They will be escorted out of the building by armed immigration officers.
herbert says
There is no right to ignore a Court order, absent a clear and immediate danger. The only proper response is to seek an immediate injunction from a higher Court
Guy Forester says
That is the problem. We do have a clear and immediate danger. How many Boston bombings, San Bernardino massacres, and airplane hijackiings do we need to endure before someone in “allowed” to act?
But as noted above, we seem to have an AG and SG that do not act quickly and decisively either.
Thanks for your input.
herbert says
As I understand precedent in this area and, it is pretty sparse, prior acts do not meet the standard. Indeed if it did, the exception could be argued to swallow the rule
CRUSADER says
Gun Carrying Muslim Bloke defends BLACK PANTHERS @ RNC gathering (Not shown on TV…)
▶ 2:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z_Ze_BjGtY
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
They continue to fight and we so shall we.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Good décision. Under the Americans Legal system, which is based on pragmatic school, law is not blind. savage mad devil Trump’s sinister motive have to be taken into consideration as the Appeal court rightly did.
herbert says
“Good décision. Under the Americans Legal system, which is based on pragmatic school, law” There is no branch of American federal law known as a pragmatic school of law. You are dead wrong. The American system is based on statutory and common law. The executive branch has essentially unlimited power to conduct foreign affairs subject to acts of Congress (with certain exceptions) and the power to declare war. (with certain exceptions). The Court intruded into an area it had no business being involved in based on a PC view. Pragmatism and “prejudice” have zero to do with this. To reach that area you would like to have the Court go, the Court would have to conclude from objective criteria that the ban was wholly irrational. Obviously it is not. Indeed, even that may not be enough and the likely remedy would be impeachment. I predict it will be reversed.
Wellington says
Seconded, herbert, with the minor quibble that, technically speaking, only Congress has the right to declare war (there have been only five officially declared wars in American history) and so, de facto, the President can effectively declare war, though when a Republican does it liberals go into hysterics. The War Powers Act of 1973 does limit Presidential prerogative in this area but many Presidents since then have either ignored it or have openly opined it is unconstitutional or both.
On a related matter, Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court’s ruling (Worcester v. Georgia, 1832) and, in typical Jackson mode, said “Chief Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Imagine all the good stuff that would hit the fan if Trump said this about the Fourth Circuit’s ruling. It would be a pure viewing pleasure. And I agree with you that this ruling will be overturned by the SC.
Finally, Ibrahim is at best a fool and ignoramus and you shut him down on the matter of American law quick like. Well, what you you expect; he’s a Muzzie and Muzzies are very much subject to a mental aberration I call Muslimthink, which does many terrible things to the mind.
Wellington says
That’s “….what can you expect….” and not “….what you you expect….”
herbert says
Well, I wrote in response to a layman trying to make a point. He made his point in a fairly courteous way. I’d prefer to not engage in “kill the messenger” type of arguments which quickly seem to degenerate into personal attacks. The issue here is a serious one and I prefer to stick to that
CRUSADER says
“Muzzies are very much subject to a mental aberration I call Muslimthink, which does many terrible things to the mind.”
Mind?
Whose mind?
Muzzles don’t have Minds. They’ve lost their “Minds”.
Those things in their heads were taken over long ago by a Moon God alien.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Herbert, It shows that you are ignorant about law. I am saying the basis of American Legal system,which includes statutes and case law, is derived from pragmatic school, not positive school where law is blind.
herbert says
“It shows that you are ignorant about law.” Really? I have a JD degree and an LLM law degree. I was a professor at a major law school for over 5 years, I have been a guest lecturer in law schools nationwide for several decades and have over 40 years of legal experience and practice. and am “of counsel ” to a major international law firm Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about..
gravenimage says
Good post, Herbert.
Ibrahim itace muhammed has also told Wellington–a retired law professor–that he is wrong about American law. Just ludicrous.
762x51FMJ says
And on the brighter side of the news.
It has been officially declared that if anglers catch a giant river monster
they wont have to scrape the seaweed off her face and get a divorce in order to ” Keep her”
related article: Fishermen using lights to poach alligators eaten alive.
gravenimage says
The foul Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Good décision. Under the Americans Legal system, which is based on pragmatic school, law is not blind. savage mad devil Trump’s sinister motive have to be taken into consideration as the Appeal court rightly did.
………………………………
There is no “pragmatic school” of law.
Besides, the idea that it is in any way “pragmatic” for American authorities to allow hordes of Muslims in to rape and murder us is just grotesque.
And the law “being blind” means everyone being equal before a court of law–something that Ibrahim itace muhammed has no concept of.
As for his understanding of civilized American law, he has claimed that any resistance to Jihad is illegal in the United States, since doing so violates Muslims’ right to freely practice their religion–which, of course, includes abusing and murdering Infidels.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Herbert lied. He has no even basic knowledge on American law. I can teach him with my combined First degree in Law and economics.
Champ says
At best, “ibe” is a dubious and profoundly unreliable source; and he’s a terrible taqiyya ‘artist’, too–epic fail of the decade.
herbert says
I know it is difficult with the many problems you clearly labor under, but you really must make an effort to deal with reality and not post silly things. On the other hand the post may not be from you. If that is so I apologize and wish to inform you that some idiot has hijacked your account and is posting stupid things under your name
Z says
The travel ban is perfectly legal
Savvy Kafir says
I’m no legal scholar; but if the travel ban is not legal, the law needs to be changed. We must have the right (and the ability) to protect ourselves against our enemies, and keep them beyond our borders.
Someone is going to lose here. And since there is NO way to reliably vet Muslims — and THEIR ideology is the one that inspires all of the hatred & violence & bloodshed — it seems obvious that THEY should be the losers in this case.
CRUSADER says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwR4RJPHd0
Judge Jeanine Pirro & Brigitte Gabriel On Trump “Muslim Travel Ban” …
▶ 4:34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwR4RJPHd0
Virginia Women for Trump Key Note Speaker:
Brigitte Gabriel, Founder – ACT for America
– Duration: 32:28 …
Ban is against countries which harbor terrorism.
762x51FMJ says
Muslim women are like giant fish….
Once you catch one and scrape the seaweed off her face.
you can decide to marry or divorce the fish accordingly.
762x51FMJ says
The only difference between fishing for river monsters and marrying a burka clad bride
is that when you scrape the seaweed off the fish you can ask for a divorce.
gravenimage says
I’m sorry–what point are you trying to make?
CRUSADER says
He knows something about fish?
gravenimage says
U.S. appeals court says Trump travel ban unlawfully discriminates against Muslims
…………………………
Actually, this ban targets countries that export terrorism. Is this an admission that Muslims are terrorists?
Champ says
Indeed, Graven. And not all muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists *are* muslims.
This ban is sound and the right course of action …
And what our president is doing is NOT “unlawful” …this is a lie.
Bravo President Trump! …thank you for trying to protect our country from known terrorists.
gravenimage says
Exactly, Champ. I hope things change once the case reaches the Supreme Court.
Wellington says
“Is this an admission that Muslims are terrorists?
Sadly, I think not, gravenimage, otherwise not just seven majority-Muslim nations would have been included in the ban but the other forty-nine as well. All of which tends to prove that this was not a Muslim ban in the first place, though I look forward to that possible day when an American President says quite publicly that if one is a Muslim and not a terrorist then one is not a good Muslim.
Such an American President could cite the Bukhari Hadith, 4.52.220, wherein the warped founder of Islam himself says, “I have been made victorious with terror.” Many other Islamic references could be invoked to prove the iniquity of Islam, for instance that 64% of the Koran is either about waging war against non-Muslims or despising them, and that every major school of Islamic theology to this very day asserts that a Muslim who converts to another religion must be killed.
Oh yes, what a day that would be should an American President give a new Evil Empire speech. Eventually a necessary day, I think, since until Islam is called out by many Western leaders as inimical to freedom and other good things like equality under the law and true women’s rights, then the West remains in regressive mode, even stupid mode.
So, I very much hope that day will come. Better.
gravenimage says
I’m sorry, Wellington–I just meant this could be a back-handed admisssion. No, I don’t really believe that is the point this idiot judge intended to make.
Wellington says
Fully understood, gravenimage. I just felt compelled to answer as I did. But you had a point, you really did, that to some extent it was an unwitting admission by the majority of the Fourth Circuit.
But this majority won’t get this. No, not at all. And tending to prove that educated people who err do far more damage to society than uneducated people who err. Which is why a proper moral intelligence, accurate knowledge and a heap of common sense are necessary compliments to pure intelligence and advanced education. Right now I would argue that such compliments are in short supply. I would point to this recent Fourth Circuit opinion as dispository evidence of this truth.
CRUSADER says
Yikes….
The Crusades were overwhelmed when hordes of Muslims got switched on Jihad.
What do you suppose would happen if Islam were given an “Evil Empire” speech ?
a) Millions upon Millions of Muslims would feel “offended” and come together as they are practiced doing, in unity, and work for Islam against the Non-Muslim World?
b) Millions upon Millions of Muslims would convert to something other than Islam,
and they will aid the rest of the Non-Muslim World?
Eric jones says
This appeals court ruling is in error. The Constitution provides for separation of church and state. It further provides for free exercise of religion. The presidents ban does not ban Islam. It bans travel from locations that have been a hot bed of terrorist activity. The presidents ban is based on his duty to protect USA citizens. The court has raised no evidence to show that persons from these countries pose no threat. This appeals court has no basis for its decision.
Again I point out that persons in privileged positions, high incomes, safe neighborhoods and body guards make decisions that but us in dangers that they will never experience. These appeals court justices have such privilege and don’t care about the rest of use. Ban refugee programs from terrorist countries.
Eric
eduardo odraude says
Until a majority of Muslim-majority nations have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, there should be a moratorium on immigration of Muslims to non-Muslim nations. Let it be demonstrated in practice that Islam can cease to be a global totalitarian movement and that it is really compatible with democracy before we permit Muslims to pour in. (And if you think Indonesia demonstrates Islam’s stable compatibility with democracy, you have not been paying attention.)
Lydia Church says
Otherwise the US will become like Europe.
I too say: Let in the persecuted Christians and keep out the persecuting muslims.
Call me what you want but this is the recipe for a safe society. That is just reality!
Terry Gain says
And welcome ex-Muslims who are fleeing Islam.
Bezelel says
It seems to me there should be consequences for these judges overstepping their bounds. I didn’t vote for him and he’s trying to take the presidents place. Is that not subversion?
Terry Gain says
Muslims will destroy the United States just as they have destroyed Europe. People who believe they have a Constitutional right to do so are clearly mistaken. And that includes these idiot leftist traitor judges.
Cheer Bear Girl says
I bet that scummy activist Judge has armed security protecting his sorry hide. I think the president should just ignore this dangerous subversive.
tgusa says
American law is not a suicide pact nor was it designed to support, endorse and defend felony endangerment of the American citizenry. My bias against these black robed moronic tyrants is growing larger every day. Our President, DJT, should just ignore their decision, I do, and then sooner rather than later remove them for being the national security threat that they have become. At this point it is fairly obvious that the government hates the American people that they govern.
LAURA says
This is ridiculous. I read an article that says that over 1/3 of everyone in our prisons across the United States are all illegal aliens. Also, I worked with criminals and could not believe how many (probably millions) of foreign criminals have snuck into our country (because they know that no country will allow in anyone with a criminal background). Also, a Border Patrol Supervisor told me 14 years ago that at that time the B.P. estimated that over 19,000 Arabs had snuck into our country illegally (illegal aliens) and he thought that most of them (if not all) were Arab terrorists that they are sending to tons of different cities. He also said that he thought once they have enough of them here, they would start attacking our country.
zxq9 says
Good thing this guy is demonstrably wrong.
“Demonstrably” as in “demonstrated by the Supreme Court” already.
Tom says
The court obviously failed to take into account that muslims in muslim majority countries follow Islam and Islam is a geopolitical system of forced adherance to Sharia Law and the goal of dominating non believers through changes to their governments through Islamic influence.
One cannot assess one part of Islam without assessing the other aspects and evaluating the whole as one overbearing life controlling entity. Along with this comes forced adherance through terror.
The President is right in banning those people who follow Islam in foreign countries.
JawsV says
With the exception of Ben Carson, Africans always side with the Muslims, such as this Judge. African columnists too, such as Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, a 100% Islam apologist. Color has a lot to do with it.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Jawsv, police in the evil united states to shoot blacks at sight, savage mad devil Trump to recolonise black Africa and revive that cruel transatlantic slave trade and resuscitate apartheidism in south Africa ?
JawsV says
Just can it, nutcase Moslem. Oh, and it’s Islam that’s evil. It’s the Mohammedans who are the mad savages. As for the slave trade, Muslims were enslaving Africans 10 centuries before the Europeans arrived. Finally, South Africa is an utter mess now. Just can it, Muzzie.
Bryn says
Radical Muslim terrorists all over the world carry out terror attacks “in the name of Allah”.
They justify their violence by quoting verses from the Quran and Hadiths.
Liberals, Muslim apologists and leftists in the West use the propoganda term “Islamophobia” to portray anyone who criticizes Islam as a “racist” and to stifle debate and/or criticism of islam, why? …to prevent reform of teachings that NEED to be reformed, Just like Christianity was reformed when the people felt free enough to speak out against teachings and practices by the church that needed to be brought to light, exposed and corrected.
Apologists ignore the fact that Islam is an ideology that has nothing to do with race, hence…criticism of this religion has nothing to do with racism. The “racist” card is pulled by politically correct indoctrinated people to silence debate, whether it’s done conciously or not.
There is an attempt in the West to impose a “veiled” sharia-blasphemy law to criminalize any criticism of Islam, under the prerense of “hate speech” towards muslims, because unlike the islamic world, the West is founded on principles of free speech and free expression with a unequivocal and Inalienable right to question everything, without fear of reprisal. If Islam can get its way by federal legislation to stop criticism and open honest debate, then it will have succeeded in silencing not only muslims everywhere but all “Infidels/kaffirs” (thats anyone not muslim) across the nation.
If any ideology either compels people to silence by fear, religiosity or legislaton go uncontested, unscrutinized, unquestioned, without resistance…left unchecked…it can infect, infest and grow in size and influence, change our way of life, unabated, without limitations…good or bad.
So WHY is Islam so hostile to criticism? Pick up a koran or a hadith, and find out why. FOR YOURSELF.
Under Sharia, those who insult Muhammad or Allah are to be executed. So are those who desecrate the Quran or commit other acts of blasphemy. i.e Draw Cartoons of mohammed, write books about islam that criticizes.
If theres nothing worrisome or particulary objectionable in islamic teaching, then why is islam so intolerant to scrutiny, criticism or inquest? Why does it forbid questioning under penalty of death? Why is apostasy is islam punishable by death?
Why does it make people uncomfortable asking these questions? ….If you remember what common sense is, I would ask you to use it.
Let me make this perfectly clear that anyone without a political agenda can understand…
I don’t hate Communists…I hate Communism.
I don’t hate Scientogists…I hate Scientology.
I don’t hate marxists…I hate Marxism.
I don’t hate Satanists…I hate Satanism.
I don’t hate Mormons…I hate Mormonism.
I dont hate Muslims…I hate Islam.
Those who still claim Im bigoted or racist in light of what I’ve clearly explained (that a 5 year old can understand) do so willingly ignorant of facts, intentionally devoid of reason, and stubbornly intent on maintaining a liebelous belief in order to virtue signal and claim moral superiority over others.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Bryn, you mean the Reform of christianity started with infusion into It the pagan doctrines líke Godman and begotten son of God from mithraism in the year 325 CE ? Muslims Will never accept such infusion or alteration of Islamic scriptures.
Brian Hoff says
trump said when running for office he would ban all muslim from enterimg America and what he said on social media since taken office can be use against him in a court of law.
JawsV says
Oh no another Muzz! People, “Brian Hoff” used to be “defender of Islam.” So, take everything he says with that knowledge and many grains of camel excrement. Also, the 14 centuries of Muzz in-breeding are apparent with “defender of Islam.”