Americans continue to wait for a decision from a three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on President Trump’s anti-terrorism travel ban. The panel heard arguments Monday after a federal district court judge stayed the ban.
The president’s ban is designed to provide more protection for Americans from terrorist attacks by preventing individuals or classes of individuals entry into the United States from seven countries that have served as notorious breeding grounds for terrorists and their murderous, destructive acts.
Those countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen.
While some in the media have tried to paint the president as violating the checks and balances of the Constitution for criticizing the district judge who stayed his executive order that contained the ban, other members of the media have begun to zero in on the 9th Circuit’s trespass onto the executive branch.
Here’s what even The New York Times wrote about Judge Michelle Friedland, who appears to think she should decide whether there is enough reason to institute a ban.
“Judge Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, did not seem persuaded that immediate suspension of travel from the seven countries was necessary.
“‘Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?’” she asked [Department of Justice attorney] Mr. Flentje.
Here is what Mr. Flentje should have said: “It’s none of your damn business. That’s the Constitutional mandate of the executive branch and the statutory authority bestowed on the president by Congressional legislation. You may agree or disagree with the bar we’ve set, or agree or disagree with the conditions and dangers from those countries as we see them, but you have no business directing, and no power to alter, policy because you don’t like it.”
Actually, Mr. Flentje did rebuff her, but not as forcefully.
Friedland’s questions demonstrate two things. First, she wants to unveil the administration’s policy reasoning so it can be attacked. To be sure, both the president and the Congress should explain their policies and their reasoning and the facts behind them. Friedland is not looking for understanding, however; she is looking for targets her thinkalikes can attack and obstruct. That motivation of hers is strictly political, not forensic.
Second, Friedland suggests that courts do, or should have, the authority to negate a policy of the executive branch, not as a matter of law or Constitution, but as a kind of second-guessing review board to contain or uproot policies they opine are not warranted or are not in conformance with their ideology.
The state of Washington’s case generates laughter among anyone who takes law seriously. The state said companies headquartered there, like Microsoft, are negatively affected in their employment practices. In other words, the ban could hinder Microsoft from hiring foreigners, because they don’t want to hire Americans. Not only is that stance anti-American, it defies logic. There are about 7.5 billion people on our planet, and because you cannot hire someone from those terrorist breeding grounds, 7.27 billion people isn’t a big enough employee pool from which to pick?
The attorney representing Washington state spluttered about religious discrimination. Unfortunately for Muslims, the violence woven intrinsically into their tenets and scriptures bloodies and defames their religion. If I were Muslim, I would not want to have to make the argument that I am being discriminated against because my faith tells me and other adherents that I have to kill all the people who don’t accept my faith.
It’s not discrimination against Islam; it’s discrimination against terrorism, unless Islam and terrorism are the same thing.
What’s happened is that a sick, self-hating ideology has overrun our schools and our society and our politics from one end of the spectrum, the end commonly called liberal, and produced intellectual usurpers like Friedland, Gates, and Google, etc., who reject all that made us what we were, our religious, cultural, and political heritage. It’s not true liberalism; it’s a deviant extremism that wants to empty our citizens of their self-respect and replace it with a docile acceptance of whatever the social engineers want to implant in our brains.
In their view, what’s right is wrong; what’s wrong is right. Protecting the lives of American citizens is wrong if it upsets foreigners who don’t belong here in the first place or some concept of “open borders”.
This new social engineering is creating two classes: the elite establishment and its privileged managers and media minions, and everyone else. The establishment is hellbent on acquiring and keeping a share of our minds, and exerting an ever stronger psychological and actual influence over us. There is a reason for the quiet raping of our privacy of which we have been much too docile in our acceptance.
Right now, private and state Internet companies, communication companies, electronic devices companies, media companies, and content-providing companies are listening in on you and watching you. Siri and Alexa may be listening even when you are not talking to them. Your computer camera, phone camera, television, microphone recorder on any of those, can – at least potentially, if not yet actually – pick up and transmit what you are saying and doing. It’s the same with the cloud and any Internet based security system with cameras that you use.
They are getting to know you, whether you want them to or not.
Beware the hook: “a more personalized experience.” It’s a gross lie. They are getting to know you, quietly and intimately, so that they can shape the way you think, guide your behavior.
Beware. It’s just a little now. It will be much, much more later.
I know I have mixed in a lot here that is disparate, and that I began with a current event and moved swiftly, and perhaps for some, too far away into the realm of what it is a part of and where it is going. I believe it is something to consider. Things just aren’t right any more. An ugliness is slowly emerging.