Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The Truth About Trump's "Muslim Ban:"

The temporary 3-month ban only restricts 7 of the 49 muslim-majority countries in the world, and does NOT include, for instance, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia. Hmm! How strange, no? Further, those 7 countries are the EXACT same 7 countries which had travel bans applied to them by the OBAMA regime. Curiouser & curiouser, isn't it? Even more, 6 of those 7 are still completely banned by KUWAIT itself. (How "racist" must those evil Arab muslims in Kuwait be, to ban those 6 other muslim countries?)!

Now, just for fun, let's actually bother to READ the EO (and Obama's and John Kerry's rationales, too)!

This was taken from former Federal Prosecutor and Freedom Watch founder Larry Klayman's amicus curiae brief to the court which had duplicitously tried to portray his executive order as "illegal:"

(Naturally, I have edited it to help you Dear Readers to reply to leftopathic slanders in general!)

The President's Power To Regulate Entry Into The United States Is Clear And Almost Unlimited.

Executive Order Targets "Failed States" Plus Terrorist Sponsor, Hostile Iran, Not Religion:

Appellees Misrepresent 8 U.S.C. § 1152(A)(1)(A)

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States."

1. The Executive Order is clearly, unambiguously, and explicitly aimed at the U.S. Government improving its methods for investigating, screening, and filtering ("vetting") entrants into the United States to do a better job of protecting the people of Washington state, Minnesota and the rest of the nation against the risk of terrorist attacks.  It is dramatically false to misrepresent the Executive Order.  Its focus is to improve discrimination between terrorists, terrorist support networks, and terrorist sympathizers as opposed to others who present no danger to the country, based exclusively upon demonstrated empirical risks of actual terrorism.

2. The President of the United States, as constitutional head of the nation's international relations and foreign policy, and as Commander in Chief, entered a formal finding that the status quo of complacency and lax border enforcement presents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.  In the language of the governing statute, President Trump entered a finding that entry from seven failed or dangerous states "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

In fact, because the issue is the risk of terrorism, not religion, the Muslim nation of Kuwait has also implemented a travel ban from five (5) of the same seven (7) countries covered by the Executive Order.

A Muslim country has banned travel from five of the same Muslim countries.  But leftopaths seek to obscure this reality that national security, not religion, is at stake.

"After Trump, Now Kuwait Bans 5 Muslim-Majority Countries, Including Pakistan,"
NDTV, February 2, 2017, accessible at:  http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/kuwait-bans-5-muslim-majority-countries-including-pakistan-1655311

... and the Executive Order creates only a 90 day pause in entry from the world's seven most dangerous countries.


Congressional legislation confirms the President’s authority in 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f), which is Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act:

(f) "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."

However, even without the benefit of legislation, the President has inherent constitutional authority over foreign policy.

See, e.g., Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2076, 2083-84(2015).

Of course that power is at its zenith when Congress by statute has agreed by legislation, as here.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579  (1952).

see also, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588 (1952)

(recognizing that control over immigration is an integral part of Article II authorities “in regard to the conduct of foreign relations [and] the war power”).


You treasonous, suicidally masochistic virtue-signalling globalist leftopaths misrepresent this case as being about religion, and even if it were this is irrelevant, as there is not right for foreign aliens of any race, religion, ethnicity, national origin or sexual preference to enter the United States, if he or she is not a citizen or permanent resident.  And, that bogus argument cannot survive the clear text of the Executive Order. The Executive Order targets terrorism.  This is not a case about religion at all.

The Executive Order explicitly, clearly, and unambiguously covers only those countries identified, during the Obama Administration, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12), as being the seven most dangerous countries in the world for their risk of terrorists infiltrating the United States.

Specifically invoking 8 U.S. Code § 1182, President Trump ordered in the Executive Order:

"I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and - 1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

These are so-called "failed states" from whom reliable records cannot be obtained to sufficiently vet against the risk of terrorism.  The seven (7) countries are selected not because they are Muslim, but because those countries are in chaos (or in the case of Iran implacably hostile and a state sponsor of terrorism), such that documents and records related to a person seeking entry into the United States cannot be trusted.  Records about potential entrants necessary to investigate and screen entrants for national security purposes are either non-existent or incomplete or worse commonly forged or falsified due to rampant corruption of officials, poverty-stricken bureaucrats, threats of violence or intimidation against bureaucrats, or terrorist infiltration of governments.

It is beyond reasonable question, that the defining characteristic is the unreliability of records from these seven (7) countries.  This is underscored by the temporary 90 day time limit on the Executive Order (in relevant portions).

The Executive Order ignores 42 other Muslim-majority countries.  Thus, the fiction of you leftopathic liars that the Executive Order targets religion is untenable and absurd.  If the Executive Order constituted discrimination against religion, (a) it would not be limited to only 90 days, and (b) it would not be limited only to those seven countries from whom records necessary for vetting cannot be trusted.

You would have us believe that the Trump Administration seeks to discriminate against Muslims - but only for 90 days - and then only from the world's seven most dangerous countries in terms of terrorism.

Chuck Ross, "FBI Director Admits US Can’t Vet All Syrian Refugees For Terror Ties [VIDEO]," The Daily Caller, accessible at: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/fbi-director-admits-us-cant-vet-all-syrian-refugees-for-terror-ties-video/; Jerry Markon, "Senior Obama officials have warned of challenges in screening refugees from Syria," The Washington Post, November 17, 2015, accessible at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

The law upon which the Executive Order depends to identify the seven countries, federal law codified as 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) is designed to allow a waiver of inadmissible aliens under 8 U.S. Code § 1182 (f), as follows.

The Executive Order tracks with the following countries, rather than identifying any countries itself, as specified in the statute.

(12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern (A) In general Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C)—(i) the alien has not been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011—(I) in Iraq or Syria; (II) in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or (III) in any other country or area of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D); and (ii) regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, the alien is not a national of — (I) Iraq or Syria; (II) a country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or 8 (III) any other country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D).

Thus, the argument is simply unavailable to the Appellees that the Executive Order discriminates against a religion, even were this relevant, which is clearly is not!

It targets countries identified by the Obama Administration under federal law as being dangerous sources of terrorism.


You morons have invented a straw man case.  This is not merely a straw-man argument.  This entire case is based upon fictions.  Having spun these fictions, you cling desperately to the falsehood at the core of the case, and strive mightily to distract from the fatal errors in your entire case.

It is surprising - after reading the emotional hyperbole of you libtards - to actually read the operative Executive Order.

After reading your hysterical virtue-signalling and slanderous drivel, one would imagine a completely different document than the one actually before the Court:  (See Exhibit A.)

1) Nowhere does the Executive Order mention Muslims or Islam.
2) Nowhere does the Executive Order mention Christians.
3) Nowhere does the Executive Order mention Jews.
4) Nowhere does the Executive Order mention religion at all.
5) In fact, nowhere does the Executive Order mention any particular country, nor specify any of the seven (7) countries affected.

The clear and present danger to the national security of refugees and travel from hostile Iran as a sponsor of terrorism and six failed states is designated by Congressional statute now codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12) and President Obama's Secretary of State John Kerry.  The Court is faced not only with a Presidential finding that travel to the United States from these seven (7) nations presents an unacceptable risk to the people of the United States - including those in Washington state and Minnesota - but a Congressional statute agreeing that Iraq and Syria, and the other five designated by Obama's Secretary of State Kerry present an unacceptable risk to the nation.

You libtards bring your case by asserting fictions that the Executive Order targets Muslims, even though of the world's 49 Muslim-majority countries, the Executive Order bans entry only from seven (7).

However, the defining characteristic by which those seven were selected is the inability for the U.S.
Government to effectively investigate ("vet") people from those countries due to the near total collapse of those countries as so-called "failed states" and hostile sponsor of terrorism Iran.

In fact, the Executive Order does not even mention the countries affected, but refers instead to the countries designated by the Obama Administration pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12) as countries of concern.  Because of  the chaos created in those countries after the so-called "Arab Spring," and the hostility of Iran, records are either unavailable or easily forged by money-strapped or corrupt officials.

In other words, a terrorist could present himself at the U.S. border posing as a Hasidic Jew under a false name, and the records from those seven countries are too deficient to confirm the entrant's true identity.  It is the nature of the "Muslim-Majority Countries Comprising the Islamic World," Center for the Education of  Women, University of Michigan, accessible at:

http://www.cew.umich.edu/muslim_majority; The Pew Research Center identifies 49 countries:  "The Future of the Global Muslim Population:  Muslim-Majority Countries," Pew Research Center, January 27, 2011, accessible at:  http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-muslim-majority/ countries, not the religion of entrants that drives the Executive Order.

Another of your lies in this case is the suggestion that the Executive Order is a ban on entrants when in fact potential entrants can receive waivers on a case-by-case basis and apparently 100% of all affected travels have in fact received waivers allowing them to enter notwithstanding the Executive Order.

Furthermore, the Executive Order limits entry only during a modest 90 day period while vetting methods are improved.



The libtarded Appellees cannot show irreparable harm or even any legally-cognizable harm, including because the Executive Order and surrounding law allows each potential visitor, entrant, or immigrant to obtain an individual, case-by-case waiver.  There cannot be harm to a potential entrant from the Executive Order when he or she can be granted entrance under a waiver.  Indeed, news reports indicate that 100% of all persons who were initially detained upon arriving at U.S. airports under the Executive Order have been cleared to enter the United States and released into the interior of the country.  That is, not a single person was denied entry pursuant to the waiver authority.

This is fatal to the ("refugee") Appellees' case.

5 "Travelers Detained Due To Trump Travel Ban Released, Attorneys Say," January 28, 2017, CBS News Chicago Channel 2, accessible at: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/01/28/travelers-detained-due-to-trump-travel-ban-released-attorneys-say/

14 The harm that can be identified might be purely financial as a result of delay.

By definition, financial costs are not irreparable.  While out of pocket expenses due to delay may be inconvenient, they cannot constitute "irreparable harm" for a TRO.

On the other side of the equation, there is irreparable harm to the national security of the United States.

Appellees argue that the status quo before the Executive order cannot represent irreparable harm.  But that is exactly the Presidential Finding in the Executive Order and the considered judgment of the U.S. Department of State and of the U.S. Congress.  It is precisely the finding that the status quo of lax foreign policy, lax enforcement and a careless lack of concern for the safety of the American people has spawned death, violence, and destruction on U.S. soil in recent years.

Actual recent terrorist attacks in San Bernadino, California, Boston, Massachusetts, Orlando, Florida, and Garland, Texas, and  Ft. Lauderdale International Airport in addition to earlier incidents such as the first and second terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and September, Michael S. Schmidt and Richard Perez-Pena, "F.B.I. Treating San Bernardino Attack as Terrorism Case," New York Times, December 4, 2015,  accessible at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html

Russia warned U.S. about Boston Marathon bomb suspect Tsarnaev: report," Reuters, March 25, 2014, accessible at: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosions-boston-congress-idUSBREA2P02Q20140326

Jim Sciutto, Pamela Brown, Paul Cruic, "ISIS claims responsibility for Texas shooting but offers no proof," CNN,  May 5, 2015,  accessible at:  http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/garland-texas-prophet-mohammed-contest-shooting/; Jim Sciutto, Pamela Brown, Paul Cruic, CNN, May 5, 2015, accessible at: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/texas-attack-terror-tweets/index.html

The Executive Order clearly, unambiguously, and explicitly "... suspends entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days..."

The 90 day suspension is clearly, unambiguously, and explicitly temporary for the purpose of the U.S. Government investigating and developing improved scrutiny, review, and filtering of dangerous applicants.  The focus is on improving national security - not on any religion.

The 90 day suspension is clearly, unambiguously, and explicitly limited to only seven (7) countries identified by President Barack Obama as so-called "failed states" or technically "countries of concern."  While conspicuously taking no action concerning the other 42 nations out of the world's 49 Muslim-majority countries, the Executive Order focuses exclusively on actual danger to the country.

Thus, the danger to the national security clearly outweighs temporary delays in travel by persons affected who come from the world's seven most dangerous countries in terms of terrorist activity directed against the United States.


There are many different kinds of executive orders.  This Executive Order is exercising the President's delegated authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).  

Therefore, the District Court is attempting to enjoin the Congressional statute.  The President's role in proclaiming a suspension under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) is a statutory role.  Thus, it is ineffectual for the
District Court to enjoin the Executive Order when the President is exercising his statutory role under
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). The Appellees are actually attacking the statute and ignoring the existing LAW.


The Appellees, Plaintiff States, have set up a constitutional crisis, crippling the President of the United States as Commander in Chief and head of international relations, from carrying out his Constitutional duties under Article II.

The U.S. Constitution was developed and ratified largely due to our Founders' realization that in international relations and national defense a single national leader must be free to act for the nation.

This is obviously true for the presidency.

Emergency treatment and prompt action on these matters is appropriate.  Increasingly-frequent terrorist attacks have been occurring on U.S. soil in response to the spread of radical Islamic terrorism and the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) styling itself as the re-establishment of an Islamic Caliphate dedicated, in the minds of ISIS, to conquer the entire Earth without exception.

The people who live and work in this circuit, no less than any other large U.S. city as an inviting "soft target," primarily Jews and Christians, are in imminent danger of sworn enemies of the United States of America, enemies who believe in their own minds - however much we might view things differently ourselves - that their eternal destiny is contingent upon their murder of Americans to further their religious beliefs. In the case of Islam, this, according to the Quran, is the elimination of “infidels” in the name of Allah.

The U.S. Government, of course, cares not why people want to kill us, only that they do.

The question is not religion but threats to the nation.

Terrorist supporters and conspirators from the seven dangerous countries may not be the gunmen or bombers who end up in the news.  They may also be the ones who train, assist, equip, and finance those who do. Thus, all need to be thoroughly vetted before they are permitted to gain entry into the United States.

The president’s executive order merely places a temporary 90 day moratorium on immigration as the new administration develops a truly functional means of this required vetting, in the interests of national security.



No comments: