Saturday, February 4, 2017

'Muslim ban' injunction is a judicial coup against President Trump (unconstitutional)

American Thinker ^ | February 4, 2017 | Ed Straker 

Federal district Judge James Robart of Seattle ordered a complete, nationwide temporary restraining order against President Trump's temporary ban on visitors from seven Middle Eastern countries.  If you read the ruling as I have, you can see this is clearly unconstitutional on its face, and constitutes a judicial coup against President Trump and the executive branch.

1) The standards for granting a temporary restraining order are quite high. The plaintiff must show that he is likely to succeed on the merits, and would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted.  Here the people from the excluded countries cannot show irreparable harm, only that their entry to the United States would be delayed. And they are unlikely to succeed on the merits, because the President has no obligation to let foreigners into the country.  On the contrary, there may be irreparable harm if the temporary travel ban is lifted, as terrorists may enter the country and kill people.

2) By the way, the plaintiffs here aren't even the people from the excluded countries.  They are the states of Washington and Minnesota who claim their citizens would be harmed if the temporary ban were not lifted; perhaps Microsoft is being deprived of some cheap labor.  It's a flimsy argument at best.  This ruling has no substantial effect on states' residents, contrary to what Judge Robart has said.

3) President Trump clearly has discretion to decide who to admit to the United States and who not to, when it comes to admitting people who are not citizens.  Foreigners do not enjoy the protection of our Constitution.  The fact that a citizen may incidentally benefit from a foreigner coming to America doesn't mean that that citizen has standing.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

A Love of Hate: The Addiction of the New American Left

American Thinker ^ | February 4, 2017 | Pete Vanderzwet 

"No Trump! No KKK! No Fascist USA!".

Damning. Morally righteous. A call to arms against darkness. This is how the new American left views itself and its opposition to President Donald Trump: a bulwark against a perceived tide of evil, where only leftists' pink hats and calls to #resist stand a chance to prevent a historic cataclysm from a caricature of an administration believed to embody all the elements necessary to be categorized as evil.
After all, didn't senior counselor to the president Steve Bannon openly admit that "darkness is good"?
Reaction to Bannon's quote exemplifies the emotional jockeying of Democrats and their supporters. Objectivity, reasoned analysis of source material, and primary research take a back seat when weighed against the desire to dislike someone if only to identify yourself to others as against what all normal people are against.
The former naval officer, who once served as an assistant to the chief of naval operations at the Pentagon, more fully stated:

Darkness is good. Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they [the media] get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing.
In other words, when the media and its adherents so blindly and gleefully accept you as the totality of evil, it significantly raises your moral stock when you do anything marginally ordinary. They put you in a narrative where the standards are so low that you cannot help but succeed.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

The Return of Class to the White House

The Coach's Team ^ | February 4, 2017 | Jim Emerson, staff writer 

President Donald J. Trump takes his role as Commander-in-Chief seriously. He never served in the American Armed Forces, but is a commander that accepts the responsibly of his position. This week, the President made an unannounced trip in order to pay tribute to a U.S. Navy SEAL who was killed last weekend in Yemen.

In a statement released by the President; “Americans are saddened this morning with news that a life of a heroic service member has been taken in our fight against the evil of radical Islamic terrorism,” Trump said in the statement. “The sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces, and the families they leave behind, are the backbone of the liberty we hold so dear as Americans, united in our pursuit of a safer nation and a freer world. My deepest thoughts and humblest prayers are with the family of this fallen service member.”

Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens, 36, from Peoria, Illinois, was assigned to an East Coast-based Special Warfare unit. “Ryan gave his full measure for our nation, and in performing his duty, he upheld the noblest standard of military service,” said Defense Secretary James Mattis. “The United States would not long exist were it not for the selfless commitment of such warriors.” Chief Owens was the first known U.S. combat casualty since President Trump took Office.

President Trump’s trip to Dover Air Force Base was shrouded in secrecy. The president was joined by his daughter, Ivanka,

The ceremony to receive the remains of Chief Owens family was a private one as they had requested that it be closed to the media.

President Trump was impressed by the military ceremony for returning the deceased to their family, later describing the ceremony as "very sad, very beautiful."
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...

Harvard Prof Cornel West- Behind Violent Berkeley Protests

Canada Free Press ^ | 02/03/17 | Mitch Wolfe 

Shame on Cornel West, his Refuse Fascism fascists, and the academic and liberal elites for failing to preserve and protect freedom of speech on this campus and on most American campuses.

At Harvard, I had a diverse group of friends and acquaintances. From Ayn Randists, Young Republicans, bleeding heart liberals to radical militant feminists, socialists and further to the left- militant Black Panther- loving Marxists.

Cornel was a member of the latter group. After Harvard, Cornel secured a Ph.D from Princeton in Philosophy. He then successfully scored professorships at Harvard, Princeton, Union Theological Seminary and now is returning to be a Harvard prof once again.

What a difference 50 years makes

youthdebates.org ^ | askdrbrown.org (?) 

Here's an interesting contrast, Berkeley in 1964 and Berkeley in 2017.

 

1 posted on 2/3/2017, 5:28:27 PM by Leaning Right

Time to boycott Hollywood for anti-Trump, liberal-hate

Bayou Buzz ^ | February 3, 2017 | By Jeff Couere 

During the presidential campaign, several dozen brainless Hollywood stars were so hateful of Donald Trump that they promised to leave the country if he won. Well, we are still waiting for them to do everyone and favor and leave. Of course, they continue to pollute the airwaves here in America. During the awards season for the movie industry, it has been non-stop criticism of our new President. . .

. . .It is time for the 62.9 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump to use their considerable economic power. If every one of those voters decided to boycott Hollywood, the industry would totally collapse. Most of today’s movies are not very good and have an obvious and agenda that is both politically correct and liberal.

The Trump voters are the ones who spend hard earned money to support brainless stars who do nothing but criticize President Trump and his change-oriented agenda.

By demeaning Trump and call him a “racist,” “Nazi,” “white supremacist,” these Hollywood fools are also deriding his millions of supporters.
It is time for the backlash of Trump supporters to begin and for millions of Americans to say to Hollywood, “enough is enough. . ."
(Excerpt) Read more at bayoubuzz.com ...

America’s Problem with Student Loans Is Much Bigger Than Anybody Realized

Anti Media ^ | 01 February 2017 | Shaun Bradley 

The Department of Education recently released a memo admitting that repayment rates on student loans have been grossly exaggerated. Data from 99.8% of schools across the country has been manipulated to cover up growing problems with the $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loans. New calculations show that more than half of all borrowers from 1,000 different institutions have defaulted on or not paid back a single dollar of their loans over the last seven years.

This comes in stark contrast to previous claims and should call into question any statistics provided by government agencies. The American people haven’t fully grasped the long-term implications of loaning a trillion dollars to young people who have no credit or assets.
Increases in tuition seen over the past two decades have become a point of controversy and angst for those who don’t fully understand the contributing factors. Between 1995 and 2015, the average cost of a public, four-year university skyrocketed by well over 200%. Although federal student aid programs are often championed as a necessity, they have been instrumental in making higher education unaffordable. The opportunity to pay for college by working a part-time job evaporated as soon as huge sums of money were handed out to anyone with a pulse. Since students no longer pay their tuition upfront, colleges are able to raise prices in perpetuity, knowing the government will step in and make credit easier and easier to obtain. As an added bonus, outstanding student loans account for 45% of the government’s financial assets.

(Excerpt) Read more at theantimedia.org ...

Berkeley Police Had a ‘No Arrests Policy’

breitbart.com ^ | February 3, 2017 | Lucas Nolan 

“It just fuels the fire,” replied Tej, “the no arrest thing, hands off policy, every time they do this and they do it successfully with no arrest, no trouble, there’s no consequences and if there’s no consequences why stop? Each time they’re gonna get stronger and stronger.”

“So how do we deal with this? What is the recourse that we have in order to try to start stemming this really rising movement of totalitarianism from the left?” asked Marlow.

“It’s simple, enforce the law. That’s it. Just enforce the law. When we go to the conservative campuses the police departments there are amazing, the shows go off without a hitch, they’re orderly, they give the protesters room to protest and they give the MILO supporters room to support MILO then they keep everybody separated. Liberal campuses have effectively emasculated the police forces there. They’ve totally been politicised, they don’t let them do their job, they actually have a hands off and no arrests policy, one of the guys at Berkeley told me this.” said Tej

“A no arrest policy? It is a policy that they can’t arrest anyone? And is this only for the left, if this was a right wing event of course there would be arrests” replied Marlow
“yes, of course” confirmed Tej
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Flashback: Obama Stranded Legal Cuban Travelers in Airports on Last Week in Office

Breitbart News ^ | 30 Jan 2017 | FRANCES MARTEL 

As the radical left organizes obstructions of airport terminals to protest President Donald Trump’s executive order enacting new security measures for travelers visiting from turbulent countries, few appear equally outraged that his predecessor, Barack Obama, issued a similar directive specifically targeting Cubans.

During his last week in office, President Obama repealed a long-standing executive order known as “Wet Foot/Dry Foot,” which allowed all Cubans legally touching U.S. soil to stay here illegally. The objective of the executive order was to give sanctuary to Cubans risking their lives on makeshift vessels trying to sail to the United States and escape the oppressive communist regime that has governed there for over half a century.

The move did not trigger widespread national protests in defense of the Cubans affected, even as U.S. immigration officials – confused by the lack of direction in Obama’s order – detained and interrogated countless travelers possessing legal visas to enter the United States. Many of these were elderly individuals, traveling to visit their children with no intention of stay. The only activists who spoke up for them were members of the Cuban exile community, who told their stories to local press.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Over 12,000 tweets are calling for Trump's assassination. Here's how the Secret Service handles it

Mashable.com ^ | 2/2/2017 | Sasha Lekatch 

In the 12 days since Donald Trump took the oath of office, a steady stream of social media posts have called for the new president's assassination.

The posts are pretty basic and many are jokes or sarcastic or hyperbolic — but there are a lot of them. In a Dataminr search of Twitter posts since Inauguration Day containing the phrase "assassinate Trump" more than 12,000 tweets came up.

The U.S. Secret Service, however, or even Twitter and Facebook themselves, doesn't seem to be jumping onto many of these posts. When we asked several users about their recent "assassinate Trump" posts, all of them said they hadn't been contacted by anyone about their post and they all remain up.

But there have been reports of agents knocking on the doors of social media users. A Kentucky woman who tweeted, "If someone was cruel enough to assassinate MLK, maybe someone will be kind enough to assassinate Trump," is currently being investigated by the Secret Service, according to the Associated Press.

An Ohio man tweeted several messages about killing Trump on election night, according to NBC News. The Secret Service questioned him the next day and he was charged with making threats to the then president-elect.
(Excerpt) Read more at mashable.com ...

Donald Trump might be more popular than you think!

The Politico ^ | February 3, 2017 | Steven Shepard 

Once again, there's evidence suggesting traditional polls aren't accurately measuring support for the president and his policies.


Just how popular is Donald Trump? Two weeks into the new president’s term, it’s a matter of some dispute.
Traditional phone polls that use live interviewers — including some of the most trusted polls in politics and media — report limited support for Trump and the controversial executive orders he’s signed. But automated phone and Internet-based surveys tell a different story. Once the element of anonymity is added, the president’s approval ratings suddenly look a lot better.
It’s reigniting the campaign debate over whether pollsters are accurately measuring Trump’s popularity — or the breadth of support for his policies. The White House is already seizing on the issue, and forcefully pushing back against the early narrative that the president is suffering from historically bad polling numbers.
At Friday’s White House press briefing, when asked to comment on a newly-released CBS News poll — conducted by live interviewers — which put Trump’s approval rating at only 40 percent, press secretary Sean Spicer was ready with an alternate data point.
“I think there’s also a Rasmussen poll that showed he had a 51-percent approval rating,” Spicer replied sharply....
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Dress Like A Woman

msn.com ^ | Feb. 3, 2017 | Jessica Burrell 

Misogyny has been a hot topic in 2017. According to a new report from Axios, nowhere is this more evident than in the office President Donald Trump.


President Trump has allegedly enforced a dress code upon female members of staff in the White House, insisting that they need to ‘dress like women’.


A source, who worked on Trump’s campaign, also stated that the President places an exacting emphasis on appearance of his staff and insists that they ‘look the part’.


The source also suggested that most women feel pressure to wear dresses in order to impress him and commented that even if women deign to wear jeans, ‘you need to look neat and orderly’.


Trump also reportedly pays close attention to men’s ties. A source who has worked with him suggested that ‘If it’s not a Trump tie, you can get away with Brooks Brothers’ or Armani.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...

The Left is picking a fight it can’t win!

US Defense Watch ^ | February 3, 2017 | Ray Starmann 

Unhinged, violent, obstructionist, ranting, tyrannical, bullying, authoritarian; they are all excellent words to describe the actions of the left during the campaign, and more importantly, since Inauguration Day.
Liberals simply cannot accept the fact that not only is a Republican, President, but that the President’s name is Donald J. Trump.
The left cannot accept the fact, that the criminal globalist, Hillary Clinton is not the 45th President of the United States, but instead has been relegated to wandering the dark woods of Chappaqua, Long Island with a cup of chai tea and a cranium of delusion.
The left is all about control, and they lost it. And, now, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson, ‘They can’t handle the truth.’
In Congress, Democrats are finding every opportunity to slow down Trump’s cabinet nominees, while attempting to smear President Trump’s Supreme Court choice, Judge Gorsuch, a man whose background is literally clean as a hounds tooth.
Meanwhile, for the past week, Senator Chuck Schumer has led the liberal revolt against the President’s executive order on immigration.
The Democrats’ goal is to completely delegitimize the President in any way they conceivably can, while railing against every single action the man has taken and will take.
The Democrats have absolutely no plan to change America. They know their policies; economic, national security and socially are anathema to half of the nation and in fact a proven and dismal failure.
While Schumer and Pelosi do their best to obstruct Republicans and Trump in Congress, their ally in disinformation and deception, the liberal mainstream media is conducting a 24/7 information war against the President and his administration never seen before in this nation.
News outlets like CNN, the NY Times and the Washington Post are now involved in an operation to pump out any item of negative information about the White House, regardless if it’s real or fake. CNN is nothing more than an American version of the old KGB run, Radio Moscow. The Washington Post is now no better than the old Marxist-Leninist rag sheet in Erich Honecker’s East Germany, Neues Deutschland.
The veil has been lifted. The liberal media isn’t even trying to put on the façade of being impartial anymore. Steve Bannon is right. They are the opposition.
With their allies in the leftist media unleashing lies every day about the President and his administration, the Democrats have at their disposal, their colleagues in chaos, the loony Women’s March protesters, the Refugees Welcome morons causing havoc at the nation’s airports and the DNC’s para-military wing, the anarchist scum and violent thugs who are being financed by Soros.
On Wednesday night, anarchists, street thugs and aggrieved special snowflakes went on a violent rampage at the University of California, Berkeley. Property was destroyed, fires were started and several Trump supporters were viciously assaulted. The rioting was in response to a scheduled speaking event hosted by Breitbart conservative writer, Milo Yiannopoulos.
The event was cancelled because the campus had become too dangerous. Meanwhile, the Berkeley Police did nothing as the violence ensued and they were attacked with Molotov cocktails.
Once again the left was successful at shutting down free speech. As anarchists smashed windows and beat Trump supporters, they yelled ‘Kill the Fascists.’ Strangely, the little punks have yet to realize that shutting down free speech is itself one of the trademarks of fascism.
The left doesn’t want to debate. They want to end debate.
America’s Brownshirts are probably unaware that the Free Speech movement was founded at Berkeley in the 1960’s.
Fifty years later free speech is dead to the left; graveyard dead.
Last night at NYU, violent left wing thugs and Black Lives Matter Marxists stopped Vice Media blogger and right wing comedian, Gavin McInnes from speaking. McInnes was attacked with pepper spray and fights broke out between NYU Republicans, BLM thugs and a left wing group calling itself NYU Anti Fascists. The ‘anti fascists’ claimed that McInnes has a track record “of using incendiary language.”
In the minds of today’s Marxists and participation trophy cupcakes, anyone whom they don’t agree with must be assaulted and their First Amendment rights squashed.
Thankfully, the NYPD is not the worthless marshmallow outfit the Berkeley PD is. Eleven anarchists were taken into custody.
It’s more than obvious that the left is not going to stop. They are unhinged, emboldened, malevolent and well financed.
Look for more Trump supporters to be beaten and even murdered. Look for more businesses to be looted and vandalized. Look for more vehicles to be firebombed.
It may be a matter of hours, days, or weeks, but a street melee, what the army calls a meeting engagement is coming between the left and right in this country. The right was very restrained as Trump supporters were attacked during the campaign and as rallies were shut down by anarchists. The right has watched in horror as left wing thugs continue to assault Trump supporters and to block American citizens’ right to free speech.
It may be in Berkeley or Manhattan or anywhere in America, but a fight is coming. It’s coming for one reason and one reason only. The left is not going to stop until they are physically impeded from continuing their violent rampage against the Bill of Rights. Who stops them is anyone’s guess. It may be bikers, vets, law enforcement, the National Guard or all combined.
One thing is certain though, they will be stopped and they will lose.

Bureaucrats Attempting to Sabotage Trump with Leaks

Breitbart ^ | 3 Feb 2017 | Michael Patrick Leahy 

Many of the 2.7 million bureaucrats employed by the federal government oppose President Donald Trump’s policies and are actively attempting to sabotage his agenda.

That sabotage comes in several forms, from secretly circulating emails among fellow ideologically committed members of the federal bureaucracy plotting strategy, to working behind the scenes with Democratic legislators to create out-of-the ordinary bureaucratic actions, to leaking confidential documents to the press.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

On Trial: Why Trump’s Immigration Ban Will Win Over Seattle Judge’s Nationwide Order

by  | 10:55 pm, February 3rd, 2017

Opening Statement
On Friday, a Boston federal judge issued a 21 page decision debunking the arguments against Trump’s Executive Order suspending migration from certain countries pending further review. Later that same day, a Seattle federal judge who has been making the news lately (and not usually for the most flattering of reasons), declared his oral intention to sign an order limiting some aspects of the executive order. In the courtroom, whose position is likely to ultimately win?
Just a quick review of the two written orders can tell you which one is likely to win. The Boston judge cited a wide range of precedents for his decision in his detailed written order. The Seattle judge issued a short order devoid of almost any reference to any precedent, which is the “evidence” for lawyers on the law. Add in comments made by the Seattle judge verbally, and if any aspect of that is correct, the Seattle judge’s opinion will lose, and Trump’s position will win.
The Evidence
Both judges appeared to reject the position of many critics: both appeared to reject the position the First Amendment prohibits the order; both appeared to reject the position the Fifth Amendment prohibits the order; both appeared to reject the position that Congressional statutes prohibit the order. Both appeared to reject claims the order discriminated on the basis of speech or religion in any way that immigration law precludes or forbids. Instead, both agreed all that mattered is whether the laws had a “rational basis.”
Here is where the Boston judge and the Seattle judge appeared to disagree. According to reports of what was said at oral argument in Seattle, the Seattle judge believes rational basis review requires the law-making branches of government “prove” with “facts” presented in court that their position is the correct one. As the Boston judge noted, this interpretation of the law — inviting the judicial branch to replace the elected branches of government — is directly contrary to precedent. This is why the Seattle judge’s opinion is likely to lose out ultimately, and Trump’s will prevail.
As the Boston judge explained, the Supreme Court provided that rational basis review merely means the law “bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.” The Supreme Court made clear rational basis review “is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices.” (Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993).
Immigration law includes a “delicate policy judgment” courts must not invade, as the Supreme Court itself said, and the Boston judge reiterated. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). As the Ninth Circuit reiterated, “we defer to the political branches in the immigration field.” Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 703 F.3d 483 (9th Cir. 2012). As the Boston court noted, the order clearly and expressly relates to concern of “infiltration by foreign terrorists” from countries identified as a risk for just that without further vetting procedures put in place. Rational basis review “is not a genuine effort to determine the actual reasons for the law, nor to inquire into whether a statute actually does further the announced interest of government. All that is required is a) does a government interest exist in securing the country from terror?; and b) does the law limiting entrants purport to relate to that interest? It does not matter if the judge thinks it shouldn’t relate or won’t relate. That decision is for the lawmaker, not the law interpreter.
The Seattle judge seemed to believe no such vetting process was “rational” unless facts showed a foreign terror incident had already successfully occurred in this country. (Even under higher levels of scrutiny, the courts have never required the evil sought to be prevented actually occur before passing law to try to prevent it from occurring in the first place.) This is second-guessing law-making decisions, not seeing whether there was a “reason” given as the “basis” for the decision, which is all rational basis review allows in our tri-partite form of government.
Closing Argument
Second-guessing Trump’s decision is for elections, not judges. The Supreme Court long ago rejected such second-guessing as impermissible. The Boston’s judge’s thoughtful and deliberate decision follows the precedents, as the law compels. The Seattle judge’s decision tries to substitute for the legislative branches, which the law condemns. In the ultimate outcome of these decisions, memories of Super Bowls past will prove prescient: Like the Patriots, Boston will best Seattle once again
Robert Barnes is a California -based trial attorney whose practice focuses on tax defense, civil rights and First Amendment law. You can follow him at @Barnes_Law
Have a tip we should know? tips@lawnewz.com