Category Archives: Terrorism

Obama Trump Spying Scandal | Why Obama Must Testify | Mar 22, 2017

| Spectator.org

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…

Mr. President: Is this report by the New York Times accurate? Sir, did officials in your White House ever “spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government”?

As the House and Senate investigations start up, with the House Intelligence Committee hearing from FBI Director James Comey today, there is someone missing from the witness list.

That would be: Former President Barack Obama.

There is one person — and one person alone — who can begin to sort all of this out: Former President Obama. He should be called to testify post haste. Here are a sample of the questions for any interested member of Congress or the Senate.

1. Your administration surveilled the e-mails of Fox reporter James Rosen, tried to force New York Times reporter James Risen to testify on his sources  for a book on the CIA. Mr. Risen went so far as to say you were the “Greatest Enemy To Press Freedom In A Generation.” Understanding these facts, why should Americans not believe that your administration used surveillance capabilities on President Trump’s associates or even the President himself? And can you categorically deny that reporting by John Solomon and Sara Carter of circa.com of an investigation by your government into a Trump server  is false?

2. Do you read the New York Times and the Washington Post? Did your White House Communications staff read the Times and the Post and did they supply you with the news of stories as presented by those papers

3. Did you read the New York Times on January 12th of this year? January 19th of this year? January 20th? February 9th? March 1st? Did you read the Washington Post on March 2nd?

4. Were you aware at any time that the news media was reporting multiple stories that your administration had leaked surveillance of anyone connected to the Trump campaign, Trump businesses or other Trump-related activity? If not, why not?

5. The New York Times headlined and reported on March 1st:

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…

Mr. President: Is this report by the New York Times accurate? Sir, did officials in your White House ever “spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government”?

6. Mr. President, at any time did officials of your government seek to “leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” … intelligence that reported on anyone connected to then candidate or president-elect Donald Trump, his campaign, his businesses or any other Trump-related enterprise?

7. Mr. President, are you willing to voluntarily turn over all papers or electronic communications and phone records of your White House and the larger government then-under your supervision that this committee deems relevant to its investigation?

8. Sir, did your administration surveil in any fashion — electronic, wireless, in-person or otherwise — the activities of Attorney General Jefferson Sessions when he was a sitting United States Senator?

9. Were you or anyone in your White House ever aware that, as per the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, the “FBI, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Treasury Department” were conducting a “wide-ranging U.S. counterintelligence investigation into possible communications between members of Mr. Trump’s campaign team and Russian operatives.”

10. Mr. President, if the answer to that last question is no — can you explain why the New York Times would report on March 1st that — and I quote:

“In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…”

Sir? Respectfully? If this report from the Times is true, does this mean you were uninformed of what went on in your own White House?”

….Continue reading more @ Spectator.org

 

Hawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights to Bring Anyone from Terror Countries into America

|  Breitbart

“In a ruling issued on Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge, and Obama appointee, prevented the President of the United States from enforcing his own executive order to protect the nation from migrants from terror-riddled countries.

The judge then prevented every other judge and every other state from following the President’s order, the judge making himself a one-man Supreme Court and substitute President.

Attorney Robert Barnes joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss his latest Breitbart News column:

“The Hawaii judge’s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because he’s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises from that that meant they had a special right to access the country and visit the country,” he said.

“As long as there is somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation of the First Amendment,” Barnes summarized.

Barnes noted that the judge did not “cite any prior decision” that has ever established this astonishing new quirk of the Constitution.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

FOUR dead – including a policeman and a woman – 20 injured as ‘two terrorists’ mow down people on Westminster Bridge before one is shot dead attacking police inside Parliament gates

| DailyMail UK

Three people and a terrorist are dead after an attacker brought carnage to central London today, mowing down pedestrians on Westminster Bridge and hacking at police with knives in the grounds of the Houses of Parliament.

Around 20 people were hit when a 4×4 drove along the pavement on the crowded bridge, knocking down and seriously injuring pedestrians before crashing into a fence below Big Ben.

The killer, described by witnesses as ‘middle-aged and Asian’, then managed to break into the grounds of Parliament, where he fatally stabbed a police officer with two knives.

The policeman died at the scene. The attacker – who was shot at least twice by armed officers guarding the building – died after he was taken to hospital.

Prime Minister Theresa May tonight vowed Britain would ‘never give in to terror’ and ‘defeat hate and evil’ after she blasted the ‘sick and depraved’ attack in Westminster.

She added the ‘forces of evil would never drive Britain apart’ and praised police and security staff who ‘ran towards danger even as they encouraged others to move away’.

It is currently believed he was the only ‘lone wolf’ attacker. Around 20 pedestrians and three other police officers were injured.

Prime Minister Theresa May was bundled into her car by a plain-clothes police officer and driven quickly from the scene as the attack unfolded. She chaired a meeting of the Government’s emergency Cobra Committee tonight.

Scotland Yard said the attack, which comes a year to the day after the atrocities in Brussels, is being treated ‘as a terrorist incident’.

….Continue reading @ Daily Mail UK

 

Critical Defense Data Theft at House Democratic Intelligence Committees By Three Pakistani Muslim Brothers

| Youtube

More here @ Youtube

 

My Hometown Fanatics: Stacey Dooley Investigates Muslim Extremists in UK

– Youtube

Stacey Dooley is an amazing filmmaker. In this documentary she goes back to her hometown of Luton, a suburb of London after just four years away.

 

 

Obama’s Enabling of Illegal Alien Rapists with Open Borders Policies | Mar 22, 2017

Exclusive—Immigration Expert: Obama’s ‘Catch And Release’ Policy Allowed Illegal Alien Rape Suspects into the U.S.

| Breitbart

“An alleged rapist was delivered from Central America to a school hallway in Maryland by former President Barack Obama’s policy of treating economic migrants as if they were victims of crime, said an expert on illegal immigration.

“The only reason the older youth, Sanchez Milian, was in the country at all was because of the Obama administration’s catch and release policies that allowed him to be resettled in Maryland (with the support of taxpayers), with few questions asked,” the Center for Immigration Studies’ Director of Policy Jessica Vaughan told Breitbart News.

“Few groups of illegal immigrants have left such a violent mark in our community as these so-called unaccompanied minors—they are almost like modern day Marielitos (the Cuban inmates released by Fidel Castro decades ago),” she said. “Dozens have been arrested for violent crimes in Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia and Texas.”

Police arrested two illegal alien suspects, 18-year-old Henry E. Sanchez Milian and 17-year-old Jose Montano, on Thursday after staff at Rockville High School in Maryland reported a sex attack on a 14-year-old freshman who had just escaped her alleged assailants. Sanchez Milian is a citizen of Guatemala.

Border patrol agents encountered him in Texas in August as he crossed from Mexico into the U.S., according to WTOP.com.

Obama administration policy required he be issued a notice to appear before an immigration judge for a hearing, and in the meantime, Sanchez Milian was free to roam around as he pleased. Despite his age, he was permitted to enroll in a public high school as a freshman.”

….Continue reading @ Breitbart

 

 

Two of President Obama’s Undocumented Alien “Children” Brutally Rape 14-Year-Old Maryland Student During School…

| TheConservativeTreeHouse

“Those of you who have followed the Undocumented Alien Children (UAC) story, which began in the summer of 2014, will note the nationality of two UAC’s who brutally raped a 14-Year-Old Rockville Maryland Student.

Henry Sanchez, 18, originally from Guatemala and Jose Montano, 17, a native of El Salvador, brutally raped a 14-year-old high school student on Thursday.   Sanchez had a pending illegal alien removal case (deportation order) pending, which was not carried out while immigration activists tried to block the deportation.

Sanchez and Montano dragged the 14-year-old victim into a school bathroom where they repeatedly gang raped her during school session.  The sickening story is partially explained in the local news coverage:

The 2014 UAC Crisis was specifically an out of control influx of “Unaccompanied Alien Children” that were not children, and were not unaccompanied.

There were entire families relocating illegally, and thousands of South American gang members including MS13 gang members, all teenage or early twenties males, who crossed the border under the auspices of being children.  They were categorized as “refugees” and settled in numerous communities throughout the U.S.”

Much more here @ TheConservativeTreeHouse

 

Rep. Waters calls for commission, says ‘Trump is a liar and FBI Director still has no credibility’

| DailyKos

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is not the least bit satisfied with Director Comey’s appearance before the House Intelligence Committee.

My takeaways: Donald Trump is a liar & the FBI Director still has no credibility. He needs to also explain HIS interference in the election.

Waters released a scorching statement demanding answers from Director Comey about why he chose to release a letter about Hillary Clinton’s email, that contained ZERO new information about her email and did not utter one word about the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. It’s a fair question and the American people deserve answers.

In her statement below, she also blasted the conduct of House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes and Republicans in the hearing yesterday, saying they demonstrated they “cannot be trusted to investigate.”

…Continue reading more @ DailyKos

What is the true cost of immigration? | Mar 20, 2017

Sorry, But Illegal Aliens Cost The U.S. Plenty

| Investor’s Business Daily

“Immigration: A center-left think tank has hailed new findings showing that illegal immigrants contribute $11.6 billion in state and local taxes nationwide. But that report really shows how little they pay compared to the rest of us.

If there’s any doubt America is importing poverty, take a look at a new study this week from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which touts the $11.6 billion illegals pay in taxes to state and local coffers. This isn’t federal or payroll taxes, just cash paid through sales taxes, property taxes and city and state fees.

“Data show undocumented immigrants greatly contribute to our nation’s economy, not just in labor but also with tax dollars,” ITEP state tax policy director Meg Wiehe said in a statement. “With immigration policy playing a key role in state and national debates, accurate information about the tax contributions of undocumented immigrants is needed now more than ever.”

We couldn’t agree more. So let’s take a look at some actual accurate information:

With an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., that $11.6 billion comes to about $1,050 per person, which The Latin Post hails as “lots of taxes.” In fact, it’s less than the average paid by citizens in even the lowest-tax states, such as Tennessee, where the average per capita state and local tax burden is $2,805, not to mention high tax areas, like Washington, D.C., where the figure is $7,540, according to data from the Tax Foundation. Media reports point out that illegals pay about 8% of their incomes in state and local taxes, compared with 5.4% for “the 1%,” but ignore that average taxpayers, based on the Tax Foundation data, pay an average of 9.48%.

Well, sure, you might say, but once illegals get amnesty, they will contribute similar amounts as the rest of us, right? Actually, no.

Illegals have far less education than average Americans and correspondingly lower base incomes. Based on another study reported this week from two other center-left think tanks, if the U.S. handed out work permits, through a program such as Deferred Action For Parents Of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), it would add only 10% to illegals’ incomes — meaning, an additional $3,000 per capita, which would then see a small slice taken as state and local taxes, for a grand total of just $805 million to the government. It still wouldn’t approach the average Tennessee local tax rates, cited above.

Illegal immigrants in fact absorb far more in benefits than they contribute. The Heritage Foundation in 2013 found that illegals contribute an average of $10,000 in total taxes (federal and payroll as well as local taxes) but use almost $24,000 in welfare and services, creating a net $14,000 per capita gain per illegal worker.

With benefits like that — and a president determined to shower even more on them — it’s little wonder the world’s impoverished feel the red carpet is out for them to come here illegally.

Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, said Heritage understates actual welfare use by illegals by its use of the federal government’s Current Population Survey. “In a more recent study where I looked at welfare use only (not taxes or other expense) using the much more accurate Survey of Income and Program Participation, I found that 62% of households headed by illegal immigrants used at least one major welfare program,” Camarota told IBD via email.

“Bottom line, illegal immigrants have a 10th grade education on average,” he said. “In the modern American economy people with that level of education tend to make modest wages and as result pay relatively little in taxes, at the same time they tend to use a lot in public services, regardless of legal status. In the case of illegals, they often receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. If you had to put it in a bumper sticker it would be: ‘there is a high cost to cheap labor.'”

….Continue reading @ Investor’s Business Daily

 

Coulter: Evidence Shows Immigrants Commit More Crimes

| Youtube

More @ Youtube

Mexican Drug Cartels Suspected in New York NYPD/ICE/DEA Take Down by new Acting U.S. Attorney | Mar 18, 2017

Mexican Cartel Ties Suspected in NYC Bronx Drug Gang Roundups

| Breitbart

“Law enforcement officials in New York filed federal charges against 49 members of Bronx-based drug distribution organizations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents joined with the New York City Police Department and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents to bring in the alleged criminals.

 

The joint law enforcement task force conducted an investigation into two Bronx-based drug trafficking organizations and secured two indictments through the Department of Justice (DOJ) Southern District of New York against 49 members of the groups. The two, 12-page indictments include charges for the murder of Jose Morales on December 11, 2016, narcotics, robbery, and firearms offenses according to a statements obtained by Breitbart Texas from ICE and DOJ officials.

Breitbart Texas spoke with media officials with the office of Acting-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Joon H. Kim. The press official said it is likely that drugs involved in these distribution organizations were likely products trafficked by Mexican drug cartels, no specific cartels or gangs are named in the indictments. The office declined an interview with the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case stating the prosecutors do not comment on pending cases.

“Dozens of alleged members of two drug distribution organizations have been charged with peddling potentially lethal drugs, Acting-U.S. Attorney Kim said in a written statement. Kim took over the Acting-U.S. Attorney position following the firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on Friday. The Department of Justice fired Bharara following his refusal to resign as requested by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Breitbart News reported. It is a normal practice for U.S. Attorneys to be asked to resign following the swearing in of a new President. President Bill Clinton fired then-US. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama Jeff Session when he took office in 1993.”

….Continue reading @ Breitbart

 

Santa Ana homicides nearly doubled in 2016, hit highest rate in six years

| OC Register

Photo credit: KEN STEINHARDT

Homicides in Santa Ana nearly doubled last year as a rash of gang-fueled shootings pushed the number of killings in Orange County’s second-largest city to its highest point in six years.

There were 23 homicides in the city last year, up from 11 in 2015, according to crime data obtained by the Register. The increase reversed a five-year trend in which the city’s homicides dropped to the lowest number in more than two decades.

The spike is notable because last year homicides in the remainder of the county dropped by 24 percent, the Register found. That dip was largely due to 61 percent decline in homicides in Anaheim, reaching its lowest level in the past decade.

Santa Ana police Cpl. Anthony Bertagna blamed the violence in his city on warring gang factions.

Shootings in Santa Ana reached a five-year high in January 2016, averaging one per day and prompting a flurry media coverage and City Hall hand wringing. In response, the police department bolstered its street presence, increasing gang member arrests, probation compliance checks and officer overtime pay to intensify enforcement in two areas under gang injunctions, Townsend Street and Santa Anita.

Police Chief Carlos Rojas since has said that the department stopped tracking shooting numbers and would rely solely on crime stats reported to the FBI. The 2016 stats obtained by the Register are those reported to federal law enforcement.”

….Continue reading @ OC Register

Federal Judge in Hawaii Backing Imam with Muslim Brotherhood Ties | Mar 17, 2017

Imam With Muslim Brotherhood Ties is Main Plaintiff in Hawaii Case Blocking Trump Travel Ban

| theGatewayPundit

It appears that the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially running our foreign policy

“The main plaintiff in the Hawaii case blocking President Trump’s revised temporary travel ban is an Imam with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries according to research by WND.

Via WND:

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.

One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.

Hawaii’s Obama-appointed federal judge, Derrick Watson, made sure the ban did not go into effect, striking it down Wednesday while buying Hawaii’s claim that it amounts to a “Muslim ban.” The state’s attorney general, along with co-plaintiff Elshikh, claims the ban would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.

 

….Continue reading more @ theGatewayPundit

 

Super. Our digital vetting system gave citizenship or green cards to thousands who were ordered deported

| HotAir

“That plan for “extreme vetting” may turn out to be extremely problematic, but don’t blame it on Donald Trump. The US Citizenship and Immigration Service began working on a program in 2006 designed to bring the vetting of immigrants into the digital era.

Unfortunately, as this new report from NextGov shows, it ran into problems almost immediately and even after implementation began it wound up being fraught with glitches and running “extremely” over budget.

Shutdowns, delays and budget overruns in the information technology system the government’s immigration service uses could allow terrorists or criminals to mistakenly receive citizenship or green cards, lawmakers fretted Thursday.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ tech troubles date back to 2006 when the agency began a massive program to create an Electronic Immigration System, or ELIS.

That project, spearheaded by IBM, had stumbled miserably by 2012 when USCIS cut the project up into shorter time frames with smaller deliverables. Since then, the project has continued to suffer bugs and delays, the agency and its auditors testified before a House Homeland Security Committee panel.

Forget about inefficiency and cost overruns. This next bit is the part that really caught everyone’s attention. We’ve been handing out green cards and citizenship papers to people who were supposed to have been loaded on a bus headed for the border. And we’re not just talking about a few here. (Emphasis added)

Because of system bugs, shifts between manual and digital processing and other issues, USCIS erroneously issued about 20,000 green cards and granted citizenship to more than 800 people who had previously been ordered deported during the past six months, an auditor found.

This project is years behind schedule, and while we’re used seeing Uncle Sam frittering away large amounts of the taxpayer’s money, being $1 billion in the hole is nothing to sneeze at. But that’s really not the alarming part here. It’s one thing to be concerned over whether or not tough immigration policies are depriving qualified applicants of good intent a chance to become citizens. It’s quite another to find out that the system is failing in the opposite direction and that nearly a thousand people who had previously been scheduled for deportation were mistakenly granted citizenship with another 20,000 getting green cards. And that was just in a six month period. How many have we done this for in total since 2012?”

…..Continue reading more @ HotAir

‘Holy Wars Will Soon Begin in Europe’ | Mar 17, 2017

Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu: ‘Holy Wars Will Soon Begin in Europe’

|  theGatewayPundit

“In one of the first reactions from Ankara to the Dutch election result, Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, warned that Europe was heading towards the abyss and that ‘holy wars’ would soon begin on the continent – this coming despite the fact that nationalist Geert Wilders, a vocal critic of Islam, was pushed into second place by the center right Prime Minister, Mark Rutte.

 

Çavuşoğlu, who has been addressing Turkish crowds across Europe ahead of a constitutional referendum in Turkey next month, was refused permission to land in Holland for a campaign rally on Saturday, sparking a heated diplomatic row and street protests which dominated the final days of the Dutch election campaign.

The dramatic war of words, which saw Ankara accuse the Dutch government of ‘fascism’ and of being a ‘Nazi remnant’, has grown in recent days to include other Western European nations which have restricted Turkish political rallies on their soil, most notably Austria and Germany, but also Denmark and Switzerland.

Recent months have seen mass demonstrations and rallies, with seas of red ‘star and crescent’ flags greeting Turkish ministers campaigning in Europe on behalf of their government’s referendum proposal. The sheer size of some rallies has caused unease, highlighting the scale of Europe’s burgeoning foreign populations and offering a glimpse of the continent’s demographic future.

Of the millions of Turks living in Europe, some five million – many of them dual citizens – are eligible to vote in the referendum, set for April 16th, which seeks to significantly increase the powers of authoritarian Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Speaking at a rally east of Istanbul just hours after his foreign minister’s controversial comments, Erdoğan accused the EU of launching an anti-Islamic ‘crusade’ between the Christian cross and the Muslim crescent, referring to Tuesday’s ruling by the EU Court of Justice which would allow employers to prohibit political and religious symbols in the workplace, including the wearing of the Islamic veil.

‘They have commenced a struggle between the cross and crescent. There is no other explanation than this. I am saying this clearly – Europe is heading toward the days just before World War II,’ Erdoğan stated in combative tone.

Following on from comments by his foreign minister earlier this week, Erdoğan again threatened to end the year-old migrant deal signed between the EU and Turkey, which could see millions of migrants flood into Europe from Turkey via Greece and Bulgaria.

Of some six million migrants seeking to enter Europe from countries surrounding the Mediterranean, an estimated three million are currently waiting in Turkey, according to a leaked German intelligence report published last month, a figure Erdoğan is fond of raising in negotiations with the EU.”

….Continue reading @ theGatewayPundit

 

Law |

Campaign Pledges Haunt Trump in Court

| New York Times

Outside the context of Mr. Trump’s two travel bans, few judicial rulings have addressed how much weight courts may put on statements from political candidates. Even informal remarks from sitting government officials are often ignored by courts, which can be reluctant to conduct what the Supreme Court has called “judicial psychoanalysis.”

“In quick succession on Wednesday night, federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked President Trump’s revised travel ban. They said statements Mr. Trump had made as a presidential candidate, including his call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” helped doom the executive order.

The judges said Mr. Trump’s promises to impose a “Muslim ban” were too telling and categorical to be ignored. “Simply because a decision maker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them” from judicial memory, wrote Judge Theodore D. Chuang of Federal District Court in Maryland.

Outside the context of Mr. Trump’s two travel bans, few judicial rulings have addressed how much weight courts may put on statements from political candidates. Even informal remarks from sitting government officials are often ignored by courts, which can be reluctant to conduct what the Supreme Court has called “judicial psychoanalysis.”

But decisions about religious discrimination allow courts to consider government officials’ real purposes, even if their stated ones are neutral.

The Supreme Court has said judges may not turn a blind eye to the context in which government policies on religion arose. “Reasonable observers have reasonable memories,” Justice David H. Souter wrote in a leading religion case.

Justice Department lawyers had urged the judges to ignore Mr. Trump’s speeches on the campaign trail. “Candidates are not government actors, and statements of what they might attempt to achieve if elected, which are often simplified and imprecise, are not official acts,” the government said in a brief in the Maryland case. “They generally are made without the benefit of advice from an as-yet-unformed administration, and cannot bind elected officials who later conclude that a different course is warranted.”

The courts had to navigate two bodies of precedents, pointing in different directions. In cases concerning immigration and national security, most decisions suggest that courts should not look behind the stated government rationale.

Courts have only rarely used statements from candidates to judge the constitutionality of government actions. In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, took account of campaign materials from Chief Justice Roy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court to judge his actions concerning a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse.

In the context of immigration and efforts to combat terror, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to look behind official actions to root out authentic motives. In 2006, in a case concerning detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice John Paul Stevens criticized a dissenting justice for relying on “press statements” from sitting Defense Department officials. “We have not heretofore, in evaluating the legality of executive action, deferred to comments made by such officials to the media,” Justice Stevens wrote. If even statements from government officials are out of bounds, it would follow that statement from political candidates should carry no weight.

In a 1972 immigration case concerning a Marxist scholar denied a visa, the Supreme Court similarly said it would not “look behind” the government’s “facially legitimate and bona fide reason.”

….Continue reading more @ NY Times

Hawaii Federal Obama Judge Appointee Prevents Trump Refugee EO | Mar 16, 2017

Hawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights to Bring Anyone from Terror Countries into America

|  Breitbart

“In a ruling issued on Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge, and Obama appointee, prevented the President of the United States from enforcing his own executive order to protect the nation from migrants from terror-riddled countries.

The judge then prevented every other judge and every other state from following the President’s order, the judge making himself a one-man Supreme Court and substitute President.

The judge then held that American universities and immigrants living here can prohibit America from ever limiting immigration from Muslim-heavy countries, claiming the First Amendment gives Muslim-dominant nations a right of immigration to America.

Such arrogance and abuse of authority sound familiar? Such First Amendment favoritism toward Islam sound familiar? Well, Obama did appoint this judge, and a rule of thumb with federal judges is they tend to mirror the psychologies of the man who appointed them.

The judge’s ruling is completely lawless, mirroring Obama’s deep state allies in his shadow government’s attempt to sabotage the Trump presidency. There is no precedent for the court’s order. In fact, every precedent is against the court’s order; just read the detailed logic and scholastic citation of proper governing legal authorities from the decision of a moderately liberal Boston judge who upheld every part of Trump’s prior order.

To give you an idea of how lawless the decision is, just try to find the analogous case the Hawaii judge cites for his ruling; there is none, not one single prior example of another judge ever doing what this Judge did to the extent he did it.

To give you another example of how baseless the court’s ruling is, even liberal law professors and scribes criticized the more limited Ninth Circuit decision that this Hawaii judge goes far beyond. Liberal law professor Turley noted Trump should win a challenge against that ruling. Liberal democrat professor Alan Dershowitz noted the same. Liberal law scribe Jeffrey Toobin conceded the same.

Attorney Robert Barnes joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss his latest Breitbart News column:

“The district court judge in Hawaii, who was a fellow law graduate of Harvard law school with former President Obama – and, in fact, Obama was in Hawaii yesterday before the decision was issued, so some people have speculated on the coincidence of that. But he issued a decision that blocks the ability of anybody to enforce the order anywhere,” Barnes said. “So he went beyond just the district of Hawaii. He said no state can enforce it. Nobody in any part of the country can enforce it. Nobody anywhere in the administration can enforce it. He issued what’s called a nationwide injunction, and it precludes any application of the order, pretty much, on any aspect of the order, pretty much, until there’s further review.”

“His basis for doing so was an extraordinary interpretation of the right to travel and the freedom of association, which before, has only been associated with U.S. citizens,” Barnes continued. “Every court decision in the 200 years prior to this has said that people who are not citizens of the United States, who are not present within the United States, have no First Amendment constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t extend internationally to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time. Instead, this judge said it did, as long as you had a university here who wanted to assert, quote-unquote, the foreigner’s rights, or you had some physical person here. In this case, it was one of the leading Muslim imams in Hawaii; he wants to bring over various family and friends from the Middle East.”

“The Hawaii judge’s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because he’s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises from that that meant they had a special right to access the country and visit the country,” he said.

“As long as there is somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation of the First Amendment,” Barnes summarized.

“So it’s an extraordinarily broad order. Its legal doctrine has no limits. If you keep extending this, it means people from around the world have a special right to access the United States, visit the United States, emigrate to the United States, get visas to the United States. There wouldn’t be any limit, and the president would never be able to control our own borders. It would be up solely to the whim of a federal judge who effectively delegated it, in this case, to a Muslim imam in Hawaii,” he contended.

Barnes noted that the judge did not “cite any prior decision” that has ever established this astonishing new quirk of the Constitution.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

Federal Judge In Hawaii Enjoins Second Executive Order

| JonathanTurley.org

Last night, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson issued a temporary restraining order that prevents the second immigration order of President Donald Trump from going into effect on Thursday.

The 43-page opinion is scathing and relies not only on the statements of President Trump but the recent statements of his chief aide Stephen Miller.  While I respectfully disagree with Judge Watson and view his decision as contrary to the weight of existing case law, the opinion again shows the perils of presidents and their aides speaking publicly about litigation.

Watson found that there was a “strong likelihood of success” for challengers because “a reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”  He strongly dismissed the argument that this is not a religious ban since it did not impact the vast majority of Muslims: “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”

As previously discussed, I believe that the odds favor the Administration in prevailing in the long run.  It could face a mix of decisions on the lower courts as it did with the first order. However, this order is a better product and presumably the Justice Department will markedly improve its performance in the defense of the order.  I do not see how a strong likelihood of prevailing could be maintained on existing case law, particularly under the establishment clause.”
….Continue reading more @ JonathanTurley.org

Grandstanding Judicial Supremacy Must End

| PJ Media

“Here we go again. Last month it was Seattle District Judge James L. Robart who decided he had the authority to contravene the president’s executive order “on a nationwide basis,” temporarily banning entry into the United States of people from seven terrorist hot spots (Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Libya, etc.). Come on in folks, don’t mind the laws of the United States! All are welcome.

Judge Robart, whom no one had ever heard of before, got a lot of play in the anti-Trump media (which is to say, the media tout court) and has doubtless been dining out on that sever since.

As I said at the time, Judge Robart’s restraining order, especially its nationwide application, struck me as legally dubious and, practically speaking, unworkable. Can we really have six or seven hundred district judges making policy for the entire country? For make no mistake, that’s what Judge Robart did. At the behest — or with the collusion — of a couple of blue state attorneys general, Judge Robart decided that he had the authority to contravene a legally framed executive order issued by the president of the United States and to make himself, Judge James L. Robart, the supreme law of the land.

Since he happened to reflect the establishment anti-Trump consensus, it was all a big hit with the establishment anti-Trump media. So it is no surprise that in the wake of the president’s new travel ban, another grandstanding judge — several of them, in fact — is eager to horn in on the publicity. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson from Hawaii made a bid for his fifteen minutes of notoriety and blocked the travel ban just hours before it was set to take effect. According to Judge Watson, the travel ban was not about national security, as the president said, but “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus.”

I’d say that was ridiculous on the face of it. If Donald Trump wanted to institute a travel ban against Muslims, why would he neglect to include countries in which more than 85 percent of Muslims live? No, the ban has to do with national security, not religion. But leave that to one side. The real issue is: Who asked Judge Watson? As Andrew McCarthy has explained with his usual perspicacity when Judge Robart weighed in on the first travel ban, the president has plenary power to decide who may and who may not travel to the United States.

McCarthy cites federal immigration law Section 1182(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 (emphasis added).

In other words, Donald Trump’s travel bans were perfectly legal.

But legality is not the issue. Political warfare is the name of the game. Judge Watson, joined by a handful of his anti-Trump confrères and the vast majority of the media elite, has decided that the judiciary, not the executive branch, is in charge of international relations and foreign affairs. (In fact, they believe that the judiciary, so long as it hews to a progressive agenda, is in charge of everything, but that is an issue for another day.)

Now the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the case, is famously latitudinarian. It sided with Judge Robart in his original TRO last month. But things may be different this time around. Yesterday, five judges said they considered that decision incorrect. “Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the president or the executive order,” Judge Jay Bybee of the Ninth Circuit wrote, “the president’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency.”

For his part, Donald Trump blasted the “unprecedented judicial overreach” of Judge Watson. What’s next? The president has vowed to fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Absent a ninth member of that Court, the decision is likely to be split 4-4, thus affirming the lower Court’s decision. So in part this story might be called “Waiting for Gorsuch.”

But I suspect the left-leaning judicial supremacists may have pulled off a scab from a wound that now will fester. There are various expedients that could be pursued. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the U.S. has to maintain a District Court system at all. A Supreme Court, yes. There it is in Article 3. But Judge Robart’s or Judge Watson’s perch? Tell me where the Constitution specifies that. Nor does the Constitution say anything about judicial compensation; perhaps it should be zero. Who knows what the ingenuity of man might discover?”

…..Continue reading @ PJ Media