monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

You ought to try facts once or twice, oralloy. You might get to like them.

blatham wrote:

He's right. Podhoretz is definitely not my favorite dude. As it happens, he's the only individual on twitter who has blocked me. We got in a fight about 7 years ago and he obviously holds grudges.

For someone who uses ignore to attack any view that he lacks the wit to argue against, you sure do whine when someone dismisses you as a charlatan.

The discriminatory genesis of the latest order seemed obvious not only to the plaintiffs but also to the district-court judges who had blocked it in Maryland (which is in the Fourth Circuit) and Hawaii (in the Ninth). It posed a problem for the government because a ban directed specifically at Muslims raised all sorts of constitutional issues—the Establishment Clause, for example. Wall, though, had made the case that the talk of a Muslim ban, along with the rest of Trump’s speeches and tweets, was not something that the judges should look at. Instead, they should confine themselves to examining the text of the order to determine if it was “facially legitimate”—if it was written in the right form, properly cited laws, and offered a plausible rationale, such as fighting terrorism. If it was, then the ban should stand. The court had no right to ask about any prejudicial pretexts. Floyd, for one, wasn’t sure

especially when they presently have a Quisling living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Judges Doubt Trump’s Travel-Ban Motives
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/the-fourth-circuit-examines-trumps-travel-ban-motives
Thoughts?

These aliens...[claim] if any power to deport domiciled aliens exists, it is so dispersed that the judiciary must concur in the grounds for its exercise to the extent of finding them reasonable.

Certainly, however, nothing in the structure of our Government or the text of our Constitution would warrant judicial review by standards which would require us to equate our political judgment with that of Congress....

"It is thoroughly established that Congress has power to order the deportation of aliens whose presence in the country it deems hurtful. The determination by facts that might constitute a crime under local law is not a conviction of crime, nor is the deportation a punishment; it is simply a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want...

The place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."

This brings us to the alternative defense under the Due Process Clause -- that, granting the power, it is so unreasonably and harshly exercised by this enactment that it should be held unconstitutional.... This is said to have reached a point where it is the duty of this Court to call a halt upon the political branches of the Government.

We, in our private opinions, need not concur in Congress' policies to hold its enactments constitutional. Judicially, we must tolerate what personally we may regard as a legislative mistake.

We are urged to apply some doctrine of atonement and redemption. Congress might well have done so, but it is not for the judiciary to usurp the function of granting absolution or pardon. We cannot do so for deportable ex-convicts, even though they have served a term of imprisonment calculated to bring about their reformation.It is well settled that deportation, while it may be burdensome and severe for the alien, is not a punishment.

We hold that the Act is not invalid under the Due Process Clause. These aliens are not entitled to judicial relief.

The government’s power to exclude and deport aliens has remained largely unlimited in light of the government’s plenary power in the immigration sphere.

Immigration law in the United States historically involved “two types of proceedings in which aliens [could] be denied the hospitality of the United States: deportation hearings and exclusion hearings.” Deportation hearings applied to aliens already within U.S. borders, whereas exclusion hearings dealt with aliens at the border seeking entry.

The Supreme Court fashioned divergent constitutional regimes for removal and for exclusion, using physical presence as the key distinguishing factor: The Court reasoned that aliens already physically present in the United States have a greater stake in their continued presence and thus have the right to challenge the basis for their removal.

The Supreme Court has consistently regarded the Executive’s power as virtually unlimited with respect to the substantive bases upon which removal may be effectuated.

The Supreme Court has held that exclusion at the border is free from due process constraints. The differential treatment stems from the concept that entry into the United States is a privilege, not a right, and therefore, before aliens cross the threshold of the U.S. border, they are completely lacking in entitlement to presence within the United States.

Obstruction of justice is when you try to prevent an investigation from learning the truth.

And as President, Trump has every right to have contacts with Russia.

What you see in that picture is basically just bad breeding, the predictable results of 1400 years of people marrying and having children with their own cousins. You could go to the worst part of any American city including Democrat cities like Detroit and you would have a hard time finding eight dudes as fucked up looking is that.

Bork Obunga had actually prioritized immigration from Somalia, a place which is 99% Muslim and whose average IQ is 68. That is actually two points below the normal definition of mental retardation. There is no rational or decent motive for bringing people from a place like that into the United States.

A gang of Somali refugees have been jailed for their part in the systematic rape and abuse of teenage girls who were failed by police and told their “lifestyle choices” were to blame for their ordeal.

Victims, as young as 14, were given drugs and repeatedly pestered for sex by the men, who were part of a wider gang based in Bristol.

A report into the abuse found that many of the victims had been let down by the police, whose failure to launch an investigation immediately meant the gang were free to abuse the victims for another six months. Victims were blamed by police for their “lifestyle choices” with one girl being told she had “brought it all on herself” after she reported two rapes.

We need to outlaw the Democratic Party...

Austria Bans Islamic Dresses for Women, Mandates 12-Month Integration Course

Austria has passed a controversial law that fines women who wear Islamic dress covering the whole face, and takes away welfare benefits from immigrants who fail to learn the language.

According to the law, women will face a fine of €150 ($168) if they wear Islamic dresses, either the niqab or the burqa, in public places. In addition to the fines, all new migrants coming to Austria to live will now be forced to take a 12-month “integration course” that includes German language lessons if they wish to receive any welfare benefits.

Austria’s attempt to integrate new immigrants has come in response to the migrant crisis rocking most European countries. At least 90,000 migrants, mostly from Muslim-majority countries outside Europe, have arrived to Austria since 2015.