[National Review] In sustaining President Trump’s so-called travel ban, the Supreme Court has vindicated "the authority of the Presidency itself," not the sometimes overheated campaign rhetoric of the incumbent president, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote today for the narrow majority.
On the merits, Trump v. Hawaii was a straightforward case. The proclamation issued by the president in September 2017 (the last refinement of earlier iterations) was not actually a "ban" on travel. It placed restrictions on the nationals of eight countries that present extraordinary challenges for visa vetting because their governments are either dysfunctional or hostile to the United States ‐ Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia (the last added when Iraq was removed from the original list).
Aliens have no constitutional right to enter the United States and, as the Court’s majority observed, the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a "fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control." In that connection, Congress has enacted section 1182(f) of federal immigration law (Title 8 of the U.S. Code), which vests broad authority in the president to suspend the entry of classes of aliens ‐ which includes setting conditions and time-frames on such suspensions ‐ if the president unilaterally concludes that their admission "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
Quite apart from the fact that Trump was thus acting at the apex of his authority (in an area of core presidential responsibility with sweeping statutory support), the travel restrictions were imposed only after an exhaustive process in which executive agencies responsible for visa-issuance decisions evaluated every country in the world for compliance with U.S. needs for information-sharing and risk-assessment. The majority noted that the twelve-page proclamation was more detailed with factual findings than any ever issued under the statute. The restrictions imposed were not based on nationality per se, much less religion, but on inadequacies in addressing risks. There was, in addition, a proviso that the "conditional restrictions" would remain in force only as long as the cited countries failed to address the problems identified. And, indeed, the chief justice pointed out that three countries ‐ Iraq, Sudan, and Chad ‐ have been removed from the list.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/27/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Forgive me if I sound like I be mansplaining, being woke is uncivil obedience per any social justice warrïor. If you disagree, your whiteness is the problem!
Posted by: Snuting Oppressor of the Trolls6154 ||
06/27/2018 1:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It is kind of impressive how they've managed to create new words & phrases in order to blame every thing under the sun on everyone else, isn't it?
[Breitbart] In one ruling, the Supreme Court has delivered two major victories to President Trump. The first victory is obvious: Trump v. Hawaii validates the President’s broad authority to restrict entry of specified foreign nationals into the United States when the President finds such entry is "detrimental to the interests of the United States."
What does this mean? It means, as I have argued, that President Trump’s "travel ban" limiting immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Chad, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen is constitutional. It means that President Trump does have the authority, despite the open-borders howls of liberals and illegal alien activists, to secure our citizens against threats posed by foreign nationals from dysfunctional states. It is a good ruling, and one that will help President Trump keep this nation safe, secure, and protected.
But Trump v. Hawaii is a decision with a less obvious meaning too. The Supreme Court has just laid the foundation for the Border Wall that the President and I want to build along the US-Mexico border. Trump v. Hawaii, in fact, provides a roadmap to "Build The Wall!"
At issue before the Supreme Court was the scope of 8 USC 1182 (f), a federal law which delegates broad authority over immigration policy to the President. Here is the text of that statute:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
The meaning of the statute is clear, and in upholding President Trump’s "travel ban," the Supreme Court correctly interpreted it. 8 USC 1182(f), as Chief Justice Roberts writes, is a statute that "grants the President sweeping authority to decide whether to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, and for how long."
So, it is settled law. President Trump can deny foreign nationals entry to the country. He should immediately issue a Presidential Proclamation suspending the entry of foreign nationals from Mexico, Caribbean, Central, and South American countries until such time as he finds the detrimental effects of illegal immigration from these regions have been curtailed and our border is secure. These areas are home to the violent and dysfunctional countries that export the vast majority of illegal immigrants to America.
Put these two historical actions together and what do you get? A proclamation that not only restricts the movement of illegal aliens into the United States, but also serves as a means of convincing a foreign government to take measures to deal with a policy matter that is detrimentally affecting our country.
Put these two historical actions together and what do you get? A proclamation that not only restricts the movement of illegal aliens into the United States, but also serves as a means of convincing a foreign government to take measures to deal with a policy matter that is detrimentally affecting our country.
#2
#1 I'll believe a 'foundation' was laid when I see the rebar and concrete trucks.
Posted by: Raj 2018-06-27 00:44
...If it isn't concrete and rebar PDQ, it's gonna have to be troops and guns. Another judge has decided that he knows immigration policy better than the US Government, and all this does is make it worse. We're to the point now where we have one branch of Government (SCOTUS yesterday notwithstanding) actively trying to undermine the rest of us.
And I don't know if we're going to get this back under control now.
Mie
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/27/2018 5:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
^So, what about toning down publicly unpopular actions against illegals themselves and, instead, concentrating on (i) smugglers, and (ii) people who employ illegals?
#4
^So, what about toning down publicly unpopular actions against illegals themselves and, instead, concentrating on (i) smugglers, and (ii) people who employ illegals?
#6
US should put through something in the UN declaring drug traffickers/king pen equivalent to pirates and eligible for death by anybody at any time.
It'll be interesting to see the Mexico ambassador's vote on that. It'd also be nice to see the occasional drone strike south of the border on a few of these sick bastards. That's really the only way to fix mexico is end the cartels, then end the oligarchy.
[Breitbart London] A tiny bunch of left-wing loons with no lives, shrivelled penises, and the collective IQ of a pickled herring is trying to ban a screening of the classic 60s movie Zulu at an armed forces fund-raising event in Kent.
Before I go on can I absolutely stress that while it has been widely reported ‐ eg here and here ‐ this is NOT a news story? The only reason I am writing about it is because it’s an excuse to say what a marvellous film Zulu is: one of those character-building experiences that every boy should have on his route to manhood.
It teaches the important virtue of keeping a stiff upper lip even as your small, thinly-manned outpost is surrounded by Zulus ‐ farsands of ’em ‐ and you are in grave danger of being disembowelled by one of their fearsome assegais. You learn that if you keep your head, suppress your urge to flee and stand with your comrades you may yet prevail, just like the 150 or so British and colonial troops did at the Battle of Rorke’s Drift in 1879 when they successfully held out against a vastly superior of perhaps 3,000 Zulus whose spears were still bloody from the 1,300 imperial troops they’d helped slaughter the day before at Isandlwana.
It’s also the film where Michael Caine really established himself as one of the greats, playing against type as an upper class English officer (Lt Gonville Bromhead). Plus Stanley Baker and sundry other fine actors are in it. It has a fine score by John Barry. And the Zulu king Cetshwayo is famously played by his great grandson chief Buthelezi.
#2
Always been a favorite. ♫ Men of Harlech stand ye steady! ♫ Love that movie. Zulu Dawn, blasted soundtrack on the copy I have is all over the place -- too quiet in dialogue to hear properly and when the action resumes your ears ring!
#5
Zulu is: one of those character-building experiences that every boy should have on his route to manhood
Thus on the banned list on most American college and university campuses as toxic masculinity (along with Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, Gettysburg, and The Crossing). Can't let anyone know who in the end pays in blood, mind and body for the unique historical experience of peace, prosperity and opportunity that so many take for granted as though it was something fundamentally natural rather than so incredibly unnatural.
#7
FTA: instead of ignoring the 0.01 per cent as you do with the bad smell when someone farts in a lift (elevator), everyone feels compelled to take their witterings seriously.
#9
It is so offensive to the black man that the Zulu nation assisted in the filming. Damned Zulu's have a thing or two to learn about being black, that's for sure.
#10
Actually the film gives honor to the Zulu warriors as well. That's the concept the PC crowd never grasps. Whether its the Cleveland Indians or Washington Redskins, its an acknowledgement of honor to their warrior heritage, the courage and strength in the fight. One of the last shots of the movie is the Zulus acknowledging fellow warriors defending the Drift, someone worthy of their salute.
#11
P2K, the SJWs don't like the warrior ethos. It's too masculine.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
06/27/2018 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Let me guess....not enough black actors.
*puts on serious face*
Among the best movies ever made. Glad the score was mentioned. The Zulu were given much honor in this movie; tons more than most adversaries at the time and even now. They were shown to human, have their own love ambitions and motivations, and even if a viewer didn't know history, that they just whomped the British.
The score builds the danger, the acting builds the characters, all tied in with some darn good camera work.
Just a serious of great scenes running one after another. Preacher, when the wagons get tipped. Bugle player not having any spit. The defense of the barracks after catching fire. Ooops, forgot to latch the corral.
[Mercer] Conservatism once had the genius of James Burnham, Russell Kirk, Frank Chodorov, and Felix Morley; now the brand boasts Rich Lowry, Meghan McCain and S. E. Cupp.
The last has learned nothing from the 2016 election. S. E. Cupp, a Never Trumper who hosts a CNN show, is betting against Donald Trump. She says, "Trump Supporters Soon Will Learn That No One Wins A Trade War."
Where’s the learning curve? I would not bet on Trump losing a trade war.
This is not to advocate tariffs. I am for free trade. But here’s the clincher. We don’t have free-market capitalism. Never have; at least not in recent memory.
Thus, "trade deficits must be seen in the context of state-managed trade and systemic debt." That’s what Trump is negotiating; he’s not messing with the divine order in which we true free-marketers believe. For it doesn’t exist.
As for Harley-Davidson’s decision to move some of its production outside of the U.S.: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Kennedy of Fox Business disclosed that the company had been looking to move production off shore for a while and were searching for an excuse to do so.
#2
1.99% APR for 60 Months OR $1,500 Trade-in with the purchase of a new [American made] 2017 Heavyweight Indian Motorcycle from June 1st - June 30th 2018.
#3
Harley has quietly been moving production of parts to India. Mostly because of cheap labor and no EPA. The Harley riders are pissed. It is never good when chrome quality enters the conversation. Harley was born of mistakes, its business leadership run from one mistake, AMF, to another, the daughter shifting the business from motorcycles to fashion. They finally ran out their Harley designer and added some horsepower to the bikes, they fixed the suspension issues, and the bikes are looking better. So its logical in the history of Harley to screw it all up by doing something stupid. Harley owners will wait it out, it will self correct.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
06/27/2018 10:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Harley has quietly been moving production of parts to India. Mostly because of cheap labor and no EPA.
#6
HD's problems here are two; cost and buyer's age.
I live near the Marine base in 29 Palms. What I note is that some baby boomer generation friends of my age have given up their Harleys due to cost of purchase and maintaining the warranty with HD required maintenance. More young Marines ride the pocket rocket imports. The older ones still prefer the Harley. It appeals to an older crowd though which section of the country is also a factor.
h/t Gates of Vienna
[CarolineGlick] National Security Advisor John Bolton said last Wednesday that while discussion of President Donald Trump’s decision to leave the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has centered on the administration’s revulsion with its institutional anti-Israel bias, the move was really about restoring American control over U.S. foreign policy.
In his words: "We did talk about Israel [in setting out our reasons for leaving the UNHRC] because it’s singled out unfairly. But in many respects, Israel is, as the saying goes, ’the canary in the mine shaft’ for the United States. Countries that attack Israel do so because they think it’s easier, but much of their criticism is really aimed at us."
Bolton added, "Getting off of the council is an assertion of America’s determination to stick to its Constitution and not to recognize that there’s some ’higher authority’ at the UN ... to judge our performance or to give us advice on how to implement the constitution ... That’s what this is about: self-government."
...The UNHRC is a perfect vehicle for advancing Europe’s foreign policy. Its name gives it a do-gooder halo effect. The notion that a "human rights council" could be anything but a force for good in the world is hard to accept.
But a year after it was established, the council focused its efforts not on protecting human rights, but on attacking the human rights of Jews in Israel. In 2007, the UNHRC passed Permanent Agenda Item 7. Item 7 created a separate standard for judging the Jewish state. Under Item 7, Israel is automatically subjected to condemnation for every action it takes to defend itself. Under Item 7, the council automatically embraces every Palestinian libel against Israel.
...In her remarks Tuesday explaining America’s decision to leave the UNHRC, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley expressed frustration at the fact that Europe had refused to assist in the U.S.’s efforts to reform the UNHRC by, among other things, cancelling Agenda Item 7.
...Haley attributed their refusal to help to cowardice ‐ or what she called "moral compromise."
Haley’s explanation for Europe’s refusal to work with the U.S. on what she thought was a common goal of ending the UNHRC’s anti-Semitism was reasonable, but wrong. And her mistake was understandable.
The EU and its member nations go to great lengths to hide the fact that they are on the opposite side of the fence from the U.S. in regards to Israel specifically and the issue of nationalism and U.S. independence more broadly.
[American Thinker] By far the most interesting thing about Sunday's Turkish elections was the endless speculations by pundits left and right about what would happen if Recep Tayyip Erdoğan were to lose. These clueless if numerous pontificators forgot to ask themselves a simple question: when was the last time an Islamist dictator in full control of state power lost an election? Mindless as they are, these idle meditations have little to tell us about Turkey but a lot about the West's (and Europe's, especially) failure or unwillingness to understand what Erdoğan is and is all about. For NATO and the West, the inevitable harsh payment due is just around the corner. Eviction?
In the meantime, Turkey has a new sultan who can and will do whatever he seemingly wants – except that the time of sultans is long past, and this one is preprogrammed for failure.
In the old Ottoman days, upon the anointment of the new sultan, all male pretenders were dispatched with a silken cord. Now they are simply put in jail as "terrorists." In the old days, all the sultan had to do was run to the largely ignorant ulema to be told why introducing the printing press is a great sacrilege, but it took centuries for the empire to become the "sick man of Europe" and a technological and military anachronism. Today, the sultan is forced to dispatch his flunkies to the captains of finance in London to explain why raising the despised interest rates sharply will calm the markets and to plead for continued funds flow.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/27/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
also Erdogan put huge numbers of productive people in prison for imaginary crimes
also Erdogan has started putting military forces in Syria, Qatar and even in Somalia
Posted by: lord garth ||
06/27/2018 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
[American Thinker] Peter Fonda called for pedophiles to rape Trump's 12-year-old son. Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters called for mob violence against conservatives and Republicans wherever they are seen in public. Kathy Griffin symbolically performed a bloody beheading of Trump. Snoop Dogg symbolically shot Trump in the head. Madonna expressed her desire to blow up the White House. Black Lives Matter told blacks to ambush and kill whites and police. The thread that ties these wacko big voices together is that they are members of the American left, enthusiastically encouraged by their homeys in fake news media. Yes, the American left is boldly calling for violence against all who disagree with its agenda.
Deranged Democrat Laurence Key vowed to kill Republican Brian Mast's kids over our immigration policy.
Numerous police (fathers and husbands) have been assassinated or wounded by Black Lives Matter assassins. Outrageously, the American left portrays BLM as saints for social justice ‐ while callously and relentlessly fueling the flames of hatred for our brave men and women in blue by promoting the lie that cops routinely murder blacks. Heather Mac Donald's research confirms that cops are the greatest defenders of black lives.
Meanwhile, fake news media portray conservatives and Republicans as the bad guys whenever they defend traditional cultural norms, our borders, and godly principles from attacks by the American left. The truth is that leftists are the aggressors, not we. Please note this truth, folks. Leftists always falsely accuse us of what they are actually doing: spewing hate, behaving uncivilly, and inciting violence.
#1
From outside, it looks like hypocrisy. From inside, power by any means excludes contradiction. Power is for them self rationalizing and self justifying. That's why Maxine Water's call to go full Klan intimidation gets a pass.
#2
Looking more and more like a replay of 1968 all the time. Of course, back then the violent left didn't have the Internet and an utterly corrupt media acting as a magnifying lens to let everyone see their true nature. I don't think it will be the advantage they imagine it to be.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/27/2018 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It is loud and ugly, but they remain Bolsheviks numerically and we are still armed.
[American Thinker] Am I missing something, or is the "fringe wing" of the Democratic Party (its now dominant wing) trying to take itself, and with it the whole party, off an electoral cliff?
After reading the news over the last couple weeks, let me see if I have this straight:
Leftist Democrats ‐ who in the Hate Trump era are the Democratic Party ‐ seem to want to make certain that everyone in America knows their party's two core beliefs:
1. The United States has absolutely no right to defend its southern border. None. Any attempt to do so, to enforce the nation's immigration laws, passed by Congress and signed by multiple presidents, is cruel, white nationalist, xenophobic, and racist...and probably contributes to global warming. All the hundreds of thousands of human beings who show up at that border must be allowed instant entry to the country, given immediate access to every existing social welfare and public benefit program, and be allowed to vote in the next election on a ballot in their own languages.
2. Republicans, conservatives, and everyone now working in the Trump administration, including all employees of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), deserve to be refused service in places of public accommodation, including restaurants, theaters, and hotels; hounded from those places, if they somehow get in, by threatening mobs; and then, together with their families and children, harassed and intimidated in their own homes.
Dear God, please, please, please let the Democrats keep this up for the rest of the summer.
Could the Republican National Committee fund a nationwide speaking tour for Maxine Waters?
#1
Just want to point out that just crossing the border gains the benefit of all the investment in infrastructure spending, rule of law and economic opportunity that migrants should really pay for based on their length of stay.
Any migrant generating less than about 2000 usd per month in tax is a burden.
#2
If the Republicans don't win the swing states this Nov they are somewhat sad. Just show adds of the Dems saying what they believe and the average american will show up to keep them out of power.
He does not need Congress. Get that, memorize it, tattoo it on your arm. The president of the United States has, as his number one job, protecting America, defending the borders. This BS about ’Oh I want to get it done if only Congress would let me.’ No, what was so great about the Trump campaign ... is 90 percent of what he was promising us ... every single thing he promised is 100 percent within the purview of the president’s power. He can build a wall, he never needed Congress, knock it off with the excuses. [Emphasis added]
That’s what our military used to do. We used to not be engaging in adventurism halfway around the globe, which apparently everyone is on the same page that a president can just like randomly bomb wedding parties without checking with Congress, 10,000 miles away from us. But no, no if it comes to protecting American citizens ‐ can’t do that ... that’s what our military used to do, they built walls and forts and barriers on our border. [Emphasis added]
#1
Yes. But to really cross the opposition up, don't try to sell it as protecting the nation. Just make it a huge Corps of Engineers project. But a successful one.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/27/2018 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Pre-emptive Levees for the Rio Grande....Climate Change protective seawall
[Townhall] Many of us are predicting that eventually these foam-spitting, psycho liberals are going to embrace violence out of frustration at their inability to recover the power we stripped from them, but we’re already past that point. Just ask Steve Scalise, alive today only because the Bernie bro who tried to massacre a bunch of Republicans, as well as Jeff Flake, did not know how to shoot.
But we Normals do know how to shoot, and that’s significant. Because, as I have grown hoarse from shouting, I see these leftist morons charging headlong down the same slippery slope I was stationed at the bottom of in Kosovo.
The bottom of the slope is really bad, and they should stop their descent. Now.
But there’s no sign of sanity. This week they turned the hate up to "11," then cranked it to "17." There are not many places to go once you reach "You are real live Nazis murdering children by not letting aspiring Democrat voters flow into the country at will!" At some point, instead of a few wild-eyed randos with crummy aim trying to off libs’ political/cultural opponents, they are going to start collectively going to go for the throat.
Make no mistake. The war is coming. Look south and see the politicians being shot and executed. It will look more like an insurgency. When the leash is broken, watch who screams loudest.
#4
There is a fireman named mark taylor who prophesied that Trump would become president after Obama as far back as 2012 (documented). He claims that God told him that there would be military tribunals set up to judge the democrats, and the whole dirty batch would come down. Hard.
I was very skeptical of the military tribunals, but after the last several days of news, I'm starting to see a path forward to them, because "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
#5
I must have missed something in the flood of news(?). Have the liberals chewed through their restraining straps and turning to violence? Have they resurrected Big Bangers Ayres and Dorhn?
#8
People do not understand fundamental human nature. Unenlightened, it will always spirals down to death.
Posted by: Snuting Oppressor of the Trolls6154 ||
06/27/2018 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#9
g(r)omgoru, that's why the resistance is bullying women. Bunch of pussies.
Of course the optics of guys bullying women is far worse but they so mixed up in their everyone is exactly the same mythology that they no longer see that.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[National Review] In sustaining President Trump’s so-called travel ban, the Supreme Court has vindicated "the authority of the Presidency itself," not the sometimes overheated campaign rhetoric of the incumbent president, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote today for the narrow majority.
[Breitbart London] A tiny bunch of left-wing loons with no lives, shrivelled penises, and the collective IQ of a pickled herring is trying to ban a screening of the classic 60s movie Zulu at an armed forces fund-raising event in Kent.
[American Thinker] Peter Fonda called for pedophiles to rape Trump's 12-year-old son. Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters called for mob violence against conservatives and Republicans wherever they are seen in public. Kathy Griffin symbolically performed a bloody beheading of Trump. Snoop Dogg symbolically shot Trump in the head. Madonna expressed her desire to blow up the White House. Black Lives Matter told blacks to ambush and kill whites and police. The thread that ties these wacko big voices together is that they are members of the American left, enthusiastically encouraged by their homeys in fake news media. Yes, the American left is boldly calling for violence against all who disagree with its agenda.
[American Thinker] Am I missing something, or is the "fringe wing" of the Democratic Party (its now dominant wing) trying to take itself, and with it the whole party, off an electoral cliff?
