Boston Judge Unblocks Trump Travel Ban, Asks “Where Does It Say Muslim Countries?”

Update: It appears President Trump is pleased with the judge's decision…

*  *  *

 

As we detailed earlier, in a blow to every mainstream media news outlet (and likely hurting a lot of feelings), President Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries will take effect in Boston on Sunday after a federal judge refused to extend a temporary ruling blocking its enforcement.

As Bloomberg reports, the decision by U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton on Friday dealt a setback to rights advocates who argued that blocking people from seven nations in the Middle East was unconstitutional. Gorton was weighing whether to extend a seven-day order blocking parts of Trump’s Executive Order.

The case, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of several affected immigrants, is one of several that followed Trump’s Jan 27 order, which roiled global travel by barring entry to the U.S. of citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Individuals, organizations, politicians and some states called it unconstitutional religious discrimination against Muslims.

As GMA News Onine reports, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton on Friday asked Matthew Segal, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing the plaintiffs in the Boston case.

"Where does it say Muslim countries?"

Segal replied…

"If your honor's question is, 'Does the word 'Muslim' make a profound presence in this executive order?,' my answer is that it doesn't,But the president described what he was going to do as a Muslim ban and then he proceeded to carry it out."

Gorton shot back,

"Am I to take the words of an executive at any point before or after election as a part of that executive order?"

Judge Gorton on Friday asked U.S. Justice Department lawyer Joshua Press how the seven countries had been selected.

Press responded that the list had come from a law passed in 2015 and amended early last year requiring that citizens of the seven countries apply for visas to enter the United States, "out of concern about the refugees that were coming, mainly from Syria at that time and terrorist events that were occurring in Europe."

As we noted previously, only 12.5% of the world's Muslims live in the seven countries on Trump's immigration ban list…

 

Which left the judge to decide (as the full docket explains here),

“The language in Section 5 of the EO is neutral with respect to religion,

 

"The provisions of Section 5, however, could be invoked to give preferred refugee status to a Muslim individual in a country that is predominately Christian. Nothing in Section 5 compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.”

Gorton wrote there is a rational reason for the Trump administration’s policies. The federal Immigration and Naturalization Act gives the president broad power over immigration.

“The order provides a reasonably conceivable state of facts (which concerns national security and) that could provide a rational basis for the classification,” he wrote. “Accordingly, this Court declines to encroach upon the “delicate policy judgment” inherent in immigration decisions.”

 

ORDER

 

For the forgoing reasons, the Court declines to impose any injunctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining order that was entered on January 29, 2017 (Docket No. 6).

Full Order below:

Exposing The Left’s War Against Ordinary Americans

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

The Saker is a level-headed person. I take it seriously when he spells out the threat to Trump’s presidency presented by the paradoxical alliance of the ruling oligarchs with what purports to be the “liberal/progressive/left.”

It is amazing that the “liberal/progressive/left” are aligned with war and not with peace and are aligned with the OnePercent against the working class, whom they despise as “Trump deplorables.”

The Saker believes that Trump is under serious threat of being overthrown and that he must strike first or go down. 

As my readers are highly intelligent, I am not surprised that some of them have arrived at the same conclusion as The Saker. Here is what one had to say:

I am totally astounded by the madness – even at formerly reasonable left – liberal websites. Alternet is one big hysteria factory. Although Counterpunch has had good articles by Mike Whitney, you (I presume, since I read your articles on your website), Diana Johnstone and a few others, I can’t believe how they’ve jumped in, too. I’ve been reading CP since the beginning of the newsletter in the 90s. Until this year, they were (after yours) my go-to website when I turned the computer on. I can’t believe they have a new article titled “Beyond Resistance – Defeating Trump’s Burgeoning Dictatorship”. And another: “Democracy in Exile and the Curse of Totalitarianism”. And another: “Muslim Bans, White Supremacy and Fascism in Our Time”. Patrick Cockburn has an article titled: “Trump’s Muslim Ban Will Only Spark More Terrorist Attacks”. Even the World Socialist Website has gone bananas.

 

Almost all of the German left-mainstream sites have gone insane. On the one hand, it seems like almost every protest group, in the end, has a source of money from Soros. On the other, it seems like 40% of the population must have been put through an MK-Ultra program. How could such mass hysteria otherwise be produced?

This is the level of argument with which protesters oppose Trump’s presidency:

Readers share my amazement that there are large numbers of people so stupid as to think that a ban on Muslim immigrants is far worse than murdering Muslims in seven countries for fifteen years. Bush and Obama conducted genocide against Muslims over the course of four presidential terms, and no protesters sought their impeachment for what are most certainly war crimes and crimes against humanity. But Trump’s perfectly legal immigration action is alleged to be grounds for impeachment!

The protesters are completely nonsensical, so much so that it must be an orchestration. As the protesting websites, if not all of the protesters in the streets, accept the 9/11 storyline and the hoax “war on terror” that the storyline justifies, it follows logically that Muslims, already “terrorists” by definition (just ask the neoconservatives and Israel), fleeing their death and destruction by Washington might harbor thoughts of harm to Americans. Considering the ruling storyline, to let them in would be irresponsible.

But not to the protesters. It wasn’t the killing of their families and destruction of their homes and countries that might make Muslims into terrorists. It is banning them from entry as refugees that turns them into terrorists!

Try to imagine the absurdity of political leadership in the US and Europe during the 21st century. Western governments inflicted so much death and destruction that they created millions of Muslim refugees in order to accept as immigrants peoples who might harbor thoughts of revenge.

Are we to conclude that there is no such thing in the US and Europe as a liberal/progressive/left, only Soros-funded protesters for hire, as in the orchestrated Maiden protests in Kiev and today in Macedonia and Hungary?

Correct or not, this is the conclusion of many.

Illegitimate protests discredit all protests.

Could we be witnessing the ruling oligarchy using its pawns to discredit in advance valid protests at the time when they move to reassert their control?

An astute citizen of Hungary sees similarity between the protests against Trump in the US and the Soros-orchestrated protests against the government of Hungary:

Dear Dr. Roberts,

 

Being the citizen of Hungary, a country heavily infested by Soros-financed NGO’s, and with a government that is openly anti-Soros, it breaks my heart to see the USA in a situation very much like what we have had to put up with since 2010, the year when Viktor Orban won a two-thirds majority, which he won again in 2014. Today, there is one piece of experience that is, I think, crucial for us, Hungarians, to share with the USA. It is this: nothing is sacred or too dear for Soros, his NGO’s and associates of all stripes in their fight for power. This has been a concept quite hard to come to terms with for many of us in Hungary. They will sacrifice the country, the future, the people, they will sacrifice anything, just to (re-)gain power. As I follow news from the USA, I see photos of crowds that appear to be filled with hatred. They are like the (fortunately quite diminished) crowds paraded around by the Hungarian opposition parties, who like to call themselves “democratic” as opposed to the government elected to office by the people, which they refer to as “fascist, nazi, anti-democratic, anti-semitic” etc.

 

These crowds are the embodiment of hypocrisy. Chanting slogans of “love”, they act out of pure hatred, for power, and refuse to be reasoned with. They refuse to consider facts. They call themselves liberals, but act against liberty through exercising total intolerance. I assume that the people who voted for President Trump are patriotic. If my assumption is correct, this also means that it will take quite some time, until the reality sinks in that Soros, his NGO’s and allies will trample down, unhesitatingly, the nation and the empire that they seek to rule unchallenged. This is because they do not rule for the people. They need the power to be in the position to exploit the nation and the empire, for their own benefit. This is not an easy thought to come to terms with for a patriot. The sooner the US electorate understands this, the more resistant it can become against the propaganda campaign and high visibility demonstrations so happily covered by the mainstream media. It is important to keep in mind that the room to maneuver President Trump has is directly proportionate to the popular supporthe enjoys, at any given time.

 

Dr. Roberts, thank you for all your valuable work invested into making the world a better – and safer – place, for the benefit of all Mankind.

 

Kind regards, Anita

Berkeley Antifa Attacker Unmasked As UC Employee? CNN and Young Turks Lookin’ So Dumb

Today, propagandists on the left attempted to change the narrative over the violent “Antifa” riots, suggesting that Trump supporters were secretly behind the group’s spate of violent terrorist acts since the election:

Of course, the ultra-liberal, Armenian Holocaust denyingTalcumX hiring, “better than you” elitists – also known as “The Young Turks,” started furiously parroting these Alisnsky tactics to cast doubt on just who keeps co-opting student protests and turning them violent…

 And Thursday night, The Young Turks Ana Kasparian – a horrible human being, introduced the question of just who IS this Antifa?

ana1

Don’t worry Ana – Twitter user Pave Darker (@PaveDarker) has your back, hack.

In a nutshell: A violent Antifa attacker bragged about beating up a Trump supporter over Twitter. In that user’s profile, @PaveDarker found a link to the attacker’s Facebook account with his real name [Note: This man is a suspect – name withheld from this post pending official investigation]:

 

pave1a

guy3a

Witness journalism in action Ana:

pave2abc

Mmmm hmm:

guy1b

Deeper we go:

guyav

And this $69,824K/year Antifa rebel appears to be a “Digital Comm Spec 4” at Berkeley:

craa

hahaha

15min

The authorities have been notified, and the UC Employee is thought to be in New York right now. Developing…

tellme

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com * Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow

World Leaders “Stunned” By Trump’s Bluntness

As President Trump drops tape (and tweet) bombs left, right, and center; often saying exactly what he is thinking, it appears the world’s leaders (and establishmentarians) are “shocked” at his inconvenient truthiness. As Tim Bale, politics professor at Queen Mary University of London, said, reflecting on Brexit concerns,

“…our reliance on the United States, in normal times, wouldn’t worry too many people… But Donald Trump doesn’t seem to be a normal president.”

Which seemed to sum things up nicely.

From Australia to Iran, and from Germany to Russia, no one is safe from President Donald Trump’s blunt, win-the-deal approach to diplomacy. As The Wall Street Journal reports, his style has U.S. adversaries and some allies struggling to assess its impact for their countries and puzzling over how to react if they land in the new American leader’s crosshairs next.

“The troubling thing for allies is this kind of hard-edged, transactional approach, where longstanding relationships and all that shared history and shared military sacrifices going back to World War I just doesn’t seem to count for anything,” said Andrew Shearer, who served as national-security adviser to two Australian prime ministers.

 

“Every deal is a struggle between a winner and a loser,” he said of Mr. Trump’s style. “That approach might work in business, but as someone who’s been around foreign policy for a long time, I just don’t see how it’s going to work internationally.”

 

 

“In the short run everyone is trying to get a handle on the new administration,” Mr. Haass said. “But in the medium and long run, whether governments like or loathe what they’re seeing, I believe what every government will do is essentially rethink its relationship with the United States.”

 

 

“Worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable,” European Council President Donald Tusk, who represents the governments of the EU’s 28 member states, wrote in a letter to EU leaders this week. He stressed the need to maintain a united Europe “whether we are talking to Russia, China, the U.S., or Turkey.”

 

“We had hoped for a more nuanced, sophisticated version of Trump after inauguration,” said a senior European diplomat. “Alas, that was not to be.”

Trump has often remarked he prefers to be unpredictable and it seems that is exactly his approach, and Richard Haass, the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Mr. Trump has introduced uncertainty into the role the U.S. plays in the world.


Furthermore, Mr. Haass said, the new president has shown an openness to upending the foreign policy status quo. “He doesn’t feel confined by what he inherited,” he said.