Biden Orchestrated Border Crisis

Karine Jean-Pierre says the border crisis is because Republicans didn't take Biden's proposal for mass amnesty "seriously."

REMINDER: Biden issued 94 executive actions in his first 100 days diluting border security — then sat back and did nothing for three years. pic.twitter.com/NrVcmPQgfV

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 6, 2024

Biden intentionally created the crisis at the border and the chaos ensuing throughout the country. He owns it. All of it. Suggesting the Republicans are responsible is ludicrous.

We are witnessing the slow, methodical, & seamless destruction of a place we once called the United States.

Our grandchildren will hate us for doing nothing while we still had the chance.pic.twitter.com/ZXqM1NZXah

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 7, 2024

Biden Executive Order - Office of Gun Violence Prevention

Biden Creates Office Of Gun Violence Prevention By Executive Orderhttps://t.co/HX96xg9xBs

— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) September 22, 2023

Hey! Big Guy!

Issue an executive order to protect our border, just as you executive ordered your way into throwing it wide open!

Google Political Activity Abuse

Internal documents obtained by #TuckerCarlsonTonight show Google employees discussed corrupting the company’s search engine to push propaganda on hundreds of millions of unsuspecting users, all for the sake of resisting President Trump.

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) September 21, 2018

From the Wall Street Journal:

Days after the Trump administration instituted a controversial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways they might be able to tweak the company’s search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, according to internal company emails.

The email traffic, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows that employees proposed ways to “leverage” search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc.” and “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”

The email chain, while sprinkled with cautionary notes about engaging in political activity, suggests employees considered ways to harness the company’s vast influence on the internet in response to the travel ban. Google said none of the ideas discussed were implemented.

...Days after the Trump administration instituted a controversial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways they might be able to tweak the company’s search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, according to internal company emails.

The email traffic, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows that employees proposed ways to “leverage” search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc.” and “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”

The email chain, while sprinkled with cautionary notes about engaging in political activity, suggests employees considered ways to harness the company’s vast influence on the internet in response to the travel ban. Google said none of the ideas discussed were implemented.

It's amazing that conservative candidates and the conservative movement in general are as successful and strong as they are given all the institutions and power utilized to thwart them at every turn.

SCOTUS Upholds 'Travel Ban'

Here’s our @NRO editorial on the ‘travel ban’ decision: https://t.co/6650UE1GJH

— Andrew C. McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) June 27, 2018

Andrew McCarthy writes:

Under long-standing precedent, the judiciary may not second-guess the denial of a visa, even if an American citizen claims derivative harm from it, if the executive branch offers a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason. This, coupled with the manifest care taken by the administration to tailor the travel restrictions narrowly, should have been cause for the courts to stay their hand. The lower courts did not do so, however, because of Donald Trump’s purple prose on the hustings and in the early days of his presidency, in which sensible concerns about border security and jihadist terrorism were framed in terms that could be construed as anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. Clearly, as the barely controlled rage of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent attests, that is why what should have been an easy decision turned into a 5–4 cliffhanger.

As the majority correctly countered, though, the judiciary’s role in a democratic society is not to police political bombast or substitute its judgment for that of the voters and the political branches. There is no special jurisprudence of Trump, no judicially legislated exemption that denies this duly elected president the legitimate constitutional and statutory powers of his office. Federal judges do not have to like the president, but their allegiance is supposed to be to the law, not to the Resistance.

It is disturbing that four justices pledged their allegiance to the Resistance rather than the law.

Moreover, the facially neutral proclamation refutes the claims of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bias. The travel restrictions are not limited to Muslim-majority countries; they do not cover the vast majority or the world’s Muslims; the Muslim-majority countries that are cited were previously designated as problematic by Congress and prior administrations; and, as already noted, Muslim-majority countries have been removed from the list once the Trump administration judged them to have improved their compliance. Further, as the majority found, Congress did not intend, by barring discrimination based on nationality in the issuance of visas, to restrain the president’s power to limit the universe of admissible aliens. This claim is rebutted by both historical practice and common sense — as the Court explained, it would absurdly prevent the president from suspending entry from countries suffering epidemics, sponsoring terrorists, or on the brink of war with the United States.

If Trump's intent was to ban Muslims from entering our country, he failed miserably. The travel restrictions "do not cover the vast majority or the world’s Muslims."

Moreover, the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations, Indonesia, Pakistan, and India, aren't included in the travel restrictions.

Let's be honest. Trump's "travel ban" is not a ban on Muslims.

Hate for Trump is not justification for the abandonment of the law.

Supreme Court Allows Travel Ban

From Politico:

President Donald Trump’s beleaguered travel ban policy chalked up a significant victory at the Supreme Court on Monday as the justices allowed full implementation of the latest version of the restrictions and indicated that the justices’ concerns about the president’s actions on the issue might be eroding.

Lower-court rulings had exempted from the travel ban foreigners with “bona fide” family, business or educational ties to the United States, but the justices issued an unsigned stay order on Monday that allows Trump to carry out the new policy even on those with U.S. connections, at least for now.

The third iteration of the president’s travel ban sought to limit to varying degrees issuance of visas for travel to the U.S. by citizens of eight countries, six of which are majority Muslim.

Only two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, indicated that they would have denied the Trump administration’s request to fully implement the policy, which the president issued by proclamation in September.

What appeared to be a 7-2 vote to let Trump proceed is a notable swing on the Supreme Court from the 6-3 vote in June in which a majority of the justices ruled that those with a “bona fide relationship” would not be subject to an earlier version of the travel ban.

In the June order, three justices from the conservative wing — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — were the only members of the court willing to let the president implement that policy.

“I think that’s very significant,” said Professor Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law. “Generally, when Justice [Anthony] Kennedy votes to grant the stay, that means they’re going to reverse” the lower courts.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor also passed up the opportunity to explain why they disagreed with their colleagues’ latest move.

“They didn’t write anything. They may just see where it’s headed,” Blackman said.

I'd like to know what Ginsburg and Sotomayor were thinking.

SCOTUS: Trump Travel Ban 9-0

Statement from @POTUS on Today's Unanimous Supreme Court Decision. pic.twitter.com/0TuHoRJzuT

— Sean Spicer (@PressSec) June 26, 2017

Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017

My latest for @FoxNewsOpinion on Supreme Court decision re travel ban https://t.co/bjgCduAo6K

— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) June 26, 2017

==> @RepDesantis and others demand Justice Ginsburg recuse herself
Read more: https://t.co/HCVg4zbEO1

— CR 🇺🇸 (@CR) June 26, 2017

__________________

I don't like that nine unelected people have so much power, but that's where we're at.

This 9-0 decision reveals just how off base the lower courts were. Even the radical Leftists on the Supreme Court agreed with the Originalists.

Although in this case the decision was unanimous, there are cases when justices go off the deep end, like when John Roberts disgracefully contorted himself to uphold ObamaCare.

The makeup of the Supreme Court is so critical.

I still do not know how Never Trumpers could have been so pigheaded that they were willing to allow Hillary Clinton to become president and solidify the Supreme Court as an arm of the Leftist complex.

Jimmy Fallon: Sean Spicer, Travel Ban Joke

JIMMY FALLON: After the ruling, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said he's confident that the travel ban is fully lawful. Then he was like, 'Sorry, I read that wrong. It's fully awful. My mistake. Sorry for that.'

Jimmy Fallon: Trump Travel Ban Decision Quotes Tweets Joke

JIMMY FALLON: Today, a federal appeals court ruled against President Trump's revised travel ban. And get this, they even quoted his tweets in their decision. Or as Trump put it, 'That counts as a retweet.'

Khizr Khan Lied About Travel Ban

Khizr Khan didn't tell the truth. But isn't he supposed to be beyond reproach?

Khizr Khan Admits The U.S. Didn't Ban Him From Traveling https://t.co/ISVWDBW2QA @bandlersbanter pic.twitter.com/eD6ZGIo8oj

— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) March 23, 2017

From the Daily Wire:

Gold Star father Khizr Khan finally admitted that the United States never banned him from traveling.

Earlier in March, headlines were ablaze with the news that Khan's planned speech at a lunch in Canada was canceled. The organization hosting him Ramsay Talks wrote on Facebook that Khan's "travel privileges were being reviewed."

Khan himself said in a statement, "This turn of events is not just of deep concern to me but to all my fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad. I have not been given any reason as to why. I am grateful for your support and look forward to visiting Toronto in the near future."

The story never made any sense from the get-go. As the Daily Wire pointed out, no American citizen can be barred from traveling to another country if they haven't been charged with a crime. Furthermore, a visa is not required to enter Canada, so the implied notion that President Donald Trump's immigration and refugee pause was somehow involved couldn't have been true.

...But now Khan has admitted his canceled lunch was not the result of the U.S. stopping him from traveling.

In an email to a local PBS reporter, Khan wrote, "I did not want to go through the hassle of uncertain rules and capricious implementation."

Additionally, Khan was wary of "Muslim profiling." He won't travel again until he's certain that he won't have to face any sort of Muslim profiling at the border.

He made it all up and did nothing to stop the Leftist media from promoting his lies as news.

Fake news.

This reflects very poorly on Khan. And the Leftist media.

Jimmy Fallon: Trump's Travel Ban and the Justice League Joke

JIMMY FALLON: It's another setback for President Trump. Last night, a federal judge in Hawaii blocked a second version of his travel ban. And now, Trump says that he'll bring it to the Supreme Court. And if they block it, he says that he's going to bring it to the Justice League. 'Batman, Batman owes me one.'

Jimmy Fallon: Pope Francis Cyberbully, Trump Joke

JIMMY FALLON: I saw that Pope Francis has actually been tweeting Bible references that oppose President Trump's travel ban. You know you're doing something wrong when you're getting cyberbullied by the pope.

Jimmy Fallon: Trump, Judges' Robes, and Nordstrom

JIMMY FALLON: The big story is that last night three federal judges unanimously ruled against reinstating Trump's immigration ban. Even worse for Trump, all three judges were wearing robes from Nordstrom.

9th Circuit Reversal Record at Supreme Court

9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court https://t.co/3ND9fYhv3S pic.twitter.com/s11nyX3fwu

— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) February 10, 2017

Wow.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has an EIGHTY PERCENT reversal rate at the Supreme Court.

That's a truly awful record.

Hillary and 9th Circuit Ruling

Hillary Clinton emerged to tweet about the ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on President Trump's immigration executive order.

3-0

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 10, 2017

Kellyanne Conway responds to Hillary with a tweet of her own.

PA, WI, MI. https://t.co/wqhYCU2qe2

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) February 10, 2017

9th Circuit Rules Against Trump

BREAKING: 9th Circuit libs rule against Trump's immigration enforcement order https://t.co/qyM8wwuCPP

— Conservative Review (@CR) February 9, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

Jimmy Fallon: Betsy DeVos Joke

JIMMY FALLON: Of course, another big story is Trump's travel ban. Earlier today, he defended the ban by saying, quote, 'Even a bad high school student would support it.' Then Betsy DeVos said, 'And thanks to me, we'll have plenty of those.'

___________________

From the New York Times:

"Mr. Fallon, by contrast, has been criticized for being somewhat apolitical and appearing too cozy with Mr. Trump...."

Apolitical? Cozy?

No.

Steven Gern

Jeff Sessions and Sally Yates

Distorting Senator Sessions’s Questioning of Sally Yates https://t.co/gDodSDUrGz pic.twitter.com/aghCeBjTnk

— National Review (@NRO) February 1, 2017

This is a must-read piece by Andrew McCarthy. It addresses the video of Jeff Sessions questioning Sally Yates that has the Leftists atwitter and the media pushing more fake news.



McCarthy explains:

There is nothing remarkable about this. The attorney general (and other Justice Department officials) are obviously supposed to give the president and the administration their best legal advice. In context, what Sessions meant by telling the president “no” was advising the president that a course he wants to pursue is, in the judgment of the attorney general, unlawful. That’s not news. Telling the president “no” in that situation is not insubordination; it is the job. Executive-branch officials do not have their own independent reservoirs of power; they are delegated to exercise the president’s power.

That is not what Yates did in connection with Trump’s EO. She did not privately tell the president she objected. She directed the executive branch to defy the president by not enforcing his directive. That is lawlessness. As our editorial points out today, executive-branch officials do not have their own independent reservoirs of power; they are delegated to exercise the president’s power. That means their choice is to exercise it as the president directs or honorably resign. Sabotage is not an option.

Nor was Sessions suggesting otherwise. To the contrary, he was emphasizing that the attorney general owes the president his best advice. The question of what should be done if the president declines to take that advice did not come up in the questioning.

Moreover, what Sessions was specifically talking about is a situation in which the president’s proposed course of action is “going to be a violation of the law.” Far from being a violation, Trump’s executive order is firmly grounded in the law.

This makes so much sense. It's not hard to understand.

I get why the Leftists don't want this to be the case, but they need to deal with reality.

Yes, they've lost their minds, but that can't derail us. We can't get bogged down addressing their delusions. We need to move forward.

And we are.

Poll: Most Support Temporary Ban on Refugees

Most Support A Temporary Ban On Those From Muslim-Majority Countries, Survey Finds https://t.co/R8xrEPp5oz pic.twitter.com/6cTUd1mF1k

— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 30, 2017

From The Daily Caller:

According to a Rasmussen poll conducted late last week, “57% of likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here.”

Thirty-three percent of those surveyed disagreed with the ban, while 10 percent were undecided.

That's certainly not the narrative being pushed by the mainstream media.

Starbucks Banned Women From Saudi Arabia Stores

Starbucks CEO says coffee chain will hire 10,000 refugees over 5 years in response to Trump's immigration order. https://t.co/SOCTR55dWE pic.twitter.com/p2yZVA3jbT

— ABC News (@ABC) January 30, 2017

From ABC News:

Starbucks says it will hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years, a response to President Donald Trump's indefinite suspension of Syrian refugees and temporary travel bans that apply to six other Muslim-majority nations.

Howard Schultz, the coffee retailer's chairman and CEO, said in a letter to employees Sunday that the hiring would apply to stores worldwide and the effort would start in the United States where the focus would be on hiring immigrants "who have served with U.S. troops as interpreters and support personnel."

These are truly strange times.

Remember when Starbucks BANNED Women from Stores in Muslim Saudi Arabia & Posted signs saying: "NO ENTRY FOR LADIES..."

#BoycottStarbucks pic.twitter.com/NMR3dF5zFR

— Amy Mek (@AmyMek) January 30, 2017