President Trump Vs. The Democrat Dunce-Cap Lobby

Critique, Democrats, Donald Trump, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

“President Trump Vs. The Democrat Dunce-Cap Lobby” is the current column, now on The Daily Caller. And excerpt:

Donald Trump is the gift that keeps giving. The week is still in its infancy, but the president has already made Chucky Schumer cry, fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates within hours of her acting up, and caused the Forgotten Man to go even harder for their president. This Trump accomplished by inadvertently exposing the Democrats as firmly in the camp of Hollywood harridans, tech execs, the immigration lawyers lobby, the global refugee industry; and in the grip of the international human rights octopus.

The Democratic constituency can no longer hide. It’s as though all these ghastly people are wearing the pussy dunce-caps adorned by the Madonna and Ashley Judd protesters. …

… Read the rest. The complete column, “President Trump Vs. The Democrat Dunce-Cap Lobby,” is now on The Daily Caller.

Related: “About The Republican ‘Facile Argument’ That Obama Halted Immigration. Just Like Trump”

UPDATED (2/5): When I First Began To Suspect That Muslims ‘Embellish’

Islam, Israel, Middle East, Multiculturalism, Terrorism

Call me biased—lowlife lefties will—but it started when I was very small. (I certainly had, still have, a good memory, because I remember it all.) With no warning, the 1967 Six-Day War began. It was quite safe for an Israeli child to wander about alone along the paths of the Yishuv, in which we lived. That’s what I was doing at the time. A man grabbed me and carried me down to the underground shelter. The border with Jordan was close by back then, and we could hear the artillery. Someone switched on the radio. We tuned into the infamous broadcasts out of Cairo, according to which Israel was losing the war.

Even as the Egyptian air force was wiped out, and its ground forces were getting slaughtered in the deserts of Sinai, Egyptian radio was broadcasting its glorious victories: They were bombing Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, destroying the enemy with impunity, etc.

“Itbuch el yuhood” were the words most frequently deployed. (“Slaughter the Jews.”)

Translating the rest, the grown-ups explained that the crazed broadcaster was saying that the Jews were being thrown into the sea, but not to worry, children, the Arabs were lying for a change.

Yes, I confess. I heard that a lot when I was growing up in an Israel that was once non-leftist and patriotic, reality oriented (today, thanks to American influence, it’s more like America).

We won the war in six days and no Jew was thrown into the sea. Of course, it was also true, against common Israeli myth, that many on the other side fought valiantly. Nevertheless, stereotypes are often supported by evidence.

That’s what crosses the mind when I see the many tall tales about how many Muslims have already died en route because of President Donald Trump’s travel ban. For one of many instances, see “Fake news: Iraqi-American lied when he claimed that his mother died due to Trump ban.”

Do you get the impression immigrants you don’t necessarily want here will do anything (including to play guilt-riddled, gullible Americans), in order to gain unfettered access to the US and its generous welfare programs?

* By the way, the Muslim world that attacked Israel, back in those good old days, was much more secular. If anything, it has regressed.

UPDATE (2/2):

Linda Sarsour:

About The Republican ‘Facile Argument’ That Obama Halted Immigration. Just Like Trump

Barack Obama, Donald Trump, IMMIGRATION, Logic, Reason, Republicans

Republicans are whinging about “how the media didn’t mind much when Barack Obama halted immigration, why are they making a fuss about the Trump refugee pause.” The whine amounts to one of those tit-for-tat, vacuous, non-arguments. It’s not an arguments of substance.

In fact, I dearly hope the Washington Post is correct and that it’s “facile”  to “claim that Trump’s refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011.” Why my hope? Because, I don’t know about you, but I despised Obama’s immigration policy. If Trump is merely doing what Obama did, then that’s not a positive thing in my book—and it’s not an argument in defense of Trump’s welcome ban.

Moreover, if Obama already did what Trump intends to accomplish with his executive travel ban—then he wasn’t so bad, now, was he? See how the non-argument above can be turned on Republicans? If Obama already did what Trump is doing about refugees—and I hope not—then Republicans and their media were  guilty of ignoring BHO’s “great merits.”

Yes, that’s what happens when you make a you-pulled-my-ponytail-first “argument.”

But since we know full well BHO was G-d awful—that he increased immigration overall, refugees and illegal aliens—it’s obvious he never came close to fulfilling the Trump promise of a Muslim immigration moratorium.

So what is the whine about? Is it to point out that mass media prefer Obama and didn’t hold him accountable? That’s a no-brainer! Better to offer a substantive defense of Trump’s positions on their merit than to keep disgorging dumb case after another to the tune that, “Hey, our guy is just like the other guy, it’s just that the media don’t like him for no reason.”

Our guy is not like Obama and I hope the media continue to hate him. That’s one measure of how well the president’s keeping his promises.

 

Comments Off on About The Republican ‘Facile Argument’ That Obama Halted Immigration. Just Like Trump

Written by on

Of Course The President’s Ban Is Constitutional

Constitution, Donald Trump, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Justice

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 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Section, 212(f).

President Donald Trump’s moratorium on the entry of all refugees into the United States, and “an order for ‘extreme vetting’ as a condition for entry for some foreign citizens,” is constitutional. This is old hat; discussed, too, in my book, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed.” (June, 2016).

No fan of the executive order, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley says he disagrees with his “colleagues at George Washington University Law School and other law schools that the order is clearly unconstitutional”:

…Courts are not supposed to rule on the merits of such laws but their legality. I think that the existing precedent favors Trump.

First, this is not a religious ban. When it was first discussed on the campaign, it was described as a ban on Muslims. This is not a religious ban. It certainly can be opposed as having that effect but there are a wide array of Muslim countries not covered by the ban and would not be impacted by the restrictions. A court cannot in my view treat this order as carrying out a religious ban as it is currently written. (Trump’s comments that he wants to prioritize Christians could raise more compelling arguments of religious discrimination).

Second, the law largely suspends entry pending the creation of new vetting procedures. That is based on a national security determination made by the President. Courts have generally deferred to such judgments. A president’s authority is at its zenith on our borders. Hillary Clinton herself campaigned on carefully vetting refugees (though she favors increasing such entries). In a November 2015 national security speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said “So yes, we do need to be vigilant in screening and vetting any refugees from Syria, guided by the best judgment of our security professionals in close coordination with our allies and partners.”

Finally, there is precedent for limited entry from particular countries going back to some of the earliest periods in this country. The earlier immigration laws include the 1875 Page Act which focused on Asian immigrants and those believes to be engaged in prostitution or considered convicts in their native countries. Then there was the infamous 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Then there were other measures limiting immigration from particular areas like the 1906 “Gentleman’s Agreement” (Japanese aliens) and the or the 1917 Immigration Act (“Asiatic Barred Zone”). In 1921 and 1924, Congress passed the “Quota Acts” limiting entry from disfavored countries. of nations from whom no further immigrants would be accepted. In every case, immigration policy continued to develop as a series of widening, discriminatory exclusions. It was not until 1965 that we broke from our long and troubling history is such discrimination. However, The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act contains section, 212(f) that gives sweeping authority on the exclusion of certain aliens: …

… READ THE REST.


The Lobbyists: