Judge Anthony Trenga, a federal judge in Virginia, has ruled that President Trump’s executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries should stand and is valid. This is in direct contrast to judges in Hawaii, Washington and Maryland who have blocked the order. What this means is the issue has now been ruled on in multiple districts with opposing results and it will now make its way to the Supreme Court for adjudication.
Judge Trenga has said in his ruling that President Trump has the authority to restrict or bar physical entry into the United States. He has also said that the executive order does not mention religion and protects Americans from terrorist attacks. He said that rhetoric on the campaign trail should not be held against the President and that the order is valid. It is not discriminatory as a Palestinian activist has claimed.
A federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday upholding President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order that temporarily bans travel from six Muslim-majority states.
Judge Anthony Trenga, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, said in his 32-page ruling that Trump was legally allowed to ban travel from those specific countries and that the executive order was not discriminatory in nature as the Palestinian activist who filed the lawsuit requesting an injunction had suggested.
Trenga wrote that the president “has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He also pointed out that the executive order itself does not mention religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.
The decision comes after federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland both blocked key components of the executive order.
Trenga said that even though Trump used the phrase “Muslim ban” as rhetoric on the campaign trail, it shouldn’t be held against the president with regard to the executive order, as the judge in Hawaii previously suggested.
“[T]he Supreme Court has held that ‘past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter,’ ” Trenga wrote.
This is very good news for President Trump and I am confident that the Supreme Court will rule in his favor as these powers lie indisputably with the executive branch of government. As Young Conservatives points out, the judge didn’t view Trump’s campaign rhetoric about a “Muslim ban” as being dispositive and did not accord it the weight that Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii did.
The ruling by Judge Trenga in Virginia is actually a normal interpretation of the law. Law is typically interpreted based on the actual case law involved… not in an interpretation of what a judge thinks someone means or on something that has been said concerning the case. That is considered subjective. You don’t look beyond the intent of the executive order… not past the four corners of the document. The order is clear and specific, therefore should be weighed on its merits, not a judge’s interpretation. It is the purview of the President to set immigration policy, not the courts. Judge Trenga ruled correctly on this matter and so will the Supreme Court.
Conspiracy rumors abound as Jade Helm military exercises begin to roll forward in various places of the United States. Is there reason to be concerned or is this simply a chance for our military personnel to practice?
One factor to consider would have to be the public’s loss of trust towards those in government.
“A key component of the controversial Jade Helm military exercise set to take part in nine U.S. states this summer will involve soldiers operating “undetected amongst civilian populations,” to see if they can infiltrate without being noticed.”
“Despite assurances that the training is to prepare troops for overseas missions, Army documents in the past have made clear that plans for martial law are in place for within the Continental United States (CONUS).
“He’s gutted their healthcare, plans to cut their pay and apparently, doesn’t trust them either. David Codrea over at Gun Rights Examiner points out that Marines marching in President Obama’s second inaugural parade recently were caring rifles without bolts, meaning they were removed.”
President Obama should bear full responsibility for the public’s loss of trust.
Obama’s administration has shown time and time again its ineptitude and utter contempt for following limitations placed on government by the Constitution. I’d list them all here; but space being at a premium…Fast & Furious scandal, Solyndra loan/gift of taxpayer funds, Obamacare’s “You can keep your doctor”, NSA spying on Americans, IRS targeting political enemies of Obama, Benghazi, racially dividing the nation, Executive Orders to get around Congress on Illegal Immigration, supplying arms to the Muslim Brotherhood, apologizing to the world for America’s greatness at the United Nations… Is it necessary to continue?
It wouldn’t be so bad if Obama’s administrators were simply inept; but their arrogance toward the public which employs them makes it even more difficult to excuse a total lack of respect for their stewardships. When asked to justify their actions the general rule is to stonewall requested information, refuse to answer or plead the 5th in order to avoid prosecution for crimes against We The People.
When the largest military operation ever to take place on American soil during peacetime is being carried out with only Washington’s promise that it’s nothing out of the ordinary, there’s no reason to be concerned or the check’s in the mail…let’s just say a little skepticism is in order.
There was an old black and white movie made back in the early sixties, Seven Days in May, which dealt with the theoretical possibility of a military take over of the government. The plot called for a group of upper echelon military to stage war games exercise and use that moment to remove the president from office under the pretense that he was unfit for office.
While the story line doesn’t match up, at least not entirely with today’s political setting, there are many similarities which are worthy of consideration. Seven Days in May, was a fictional story; however, think on this:
“President Kennedy had read Seven Days in May shortly after its publication and believed the scenario as described could actually occur in the United States.”
“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not. Those who will not are being removed.”
Obama has scheduled Jade Helm as a military exercise to be carried out in several states, some labeled as “Hostile”, states which just happen to have voted against him and his agenda to transform America.
Is this a military take over, similar to the one in Seven Days in May, only in reverse; a president of the United States setting the stage for Martial Law?
Obama didn’t trust U.S. Marines to have loaded weapons during his Inauguration Parade, he doesn’t trust American citizens with weapons either. Is Jade Helm the elephant in the middle of the room that nobody can see, Obama’s bold opportunity to seize American’s weapons via a supposed military exercise?
Are those FEMA buildings what they purport to be or is there a more sinister, a dark side to their being located behind schools or on Wal-mart properties shut down for “emergency plumbing repairs”?
While we’re into making outlandish comparisons…didn’t Richard ‘I am not a Crook’ Nixon have plumbers… White House Plumbers to fix those who stood against him? Maybe Obama has a team of plumbers going to fix what needs fixing and they’ll use Wal-mart as cover during Jade Helm.
Here’s my solution to restoring a smidgen of trust in our government at this time. Call off Jade Helm and put the public’s mind at ease. There’s enough unrest going on without pouring gasoline on an already smoldering fire.
Is there reason for concern regarding Jade Helm? You don’t have to be into conspiracy theories to come up with…yes.
The Moral Liberal’s Senior Editor, T.F. Stern, is a retired City of Houston police officer, self-employed locksmith, and gifted political and social commentator. His popular and insightful blog, T.F. Sterns Rantings, has been up and at it since January of 2005.
The Republican Party is becoming more and more detached from their conservative base. They seem to vote against anything the conservatives want and do all they can to enable our Marxist president. As Andrew McCarthy put it, “Voting to confirm an attorney general who won’t uphold the Constitution isn’t a way to inspire confidence among conservatives.”
Last Thursday, Karl Rove couldn’t wait to announce that, “The dysfunctional Congress finally appears to be working again as the Founders intended.” Really? Because this isn’t the way I perceive the Founders having intended it at all. They would have impeached and removed a sitting president who acted like a monarch. Then to validate Rove’s proclamation, the GOP-controlled Senate confirmed as attorney general Loretta Lynch who blatantly supports the systematic non-enforcement of federal law. Ms. Lynch also supports President Obama’s boldly unconstitutional usurpations of legislative authority, including Congress’ power to set the terms of lawful presence by aliens in our country. Ted Cruz SLAMMED the Republican majority in the Senate for allowing the Lynch nomination:
On the Senate floor a few moments ago, Ted Cruz SLAMMED the new Senate Republican majority for refusing to block Loretta Lynch’s nomination to attorney general. He said that the Republican majority could continue to block the nomination if they wanted to and it’s something he’s urged them to do because of her admissions to run the DOJ in a lawless fashion just like Eric Holder.
He pointed out that more than a few voters are asking what is the difference between a Republican and Democratic Senate majority when someone promising the exact same lawlessness as Holder will be allowed to get confirmed. He says that’s something each Republican will have to explain to their constituents.
He also adds that not a single Republican can vote for such a nomination and be consistent with their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.
Unfortunately, Loretta Lynch was just confirmed. Sigh.
Q: Will you defend Obama’s illegal Executive Amnesty? A: Lynch thinks the Administration’s contrived legal justification is reasonable. She sees nothing wrong with the President’s decision to unilaterally grant lawful status and work authorizations that are explicitly barred by federal law to nearly 5 million people who are here illegally.
Q: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who’s here as a citizen – or a person who entered the country unlawfully? A: Lynch believes that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, she would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.
Q: Concerning the limits of prosecutorial discretion… the dubious theory that President Obama has put forward to justify his illegal Executive Amnesty; where do you stand? A: Lynch would give no limits to that theory.
Q: Can a subsequent President use prosecutorial discretion to order the Treasury Secretary not to enforce the tax laws and to collect no more income taxes in excess of 25%? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Can a subsequent President use prosecutorial discretion to exempt the state of Texas, all 27 million people, from every single federal labor and environmental law? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Do you agree with the Holder Justice Department that the government could place a GPS sensor on the car of every single American without probable cause? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Do you agree with the Holder Justice Department that the First Amendment gives no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a church’s or a synagogue’s choice of their own pastor or rabbi? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Do you believe the federal government can employ a drone to kill a US citizen on American soil if that citizen does not pose an imminent threat? A: She refused to answer.
Q: Would you be willing to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the IRS’ targeting of citizens and citizen groups for their political views? An investigator that was at a minimum, not a major Obama donor? A: She refused to answer.
Our ‘functional Congress’ confirmed Loretta Lynch as our new attorney general, replacing Eric Holder, possibly the most lawless, racist and fascist AG this nation has ever seen. Lynch testified brazenly that she endorses and intends to facilitate the president’s lawlessness and constitutional violations. Having heard her testimony during the confirmation hearings, 10 Republican senators decided to vote for Lynch. Remember, the position of attorney general exists to ensure that the laws are enforced and the Constitution is preserved; and… each senator has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. This should have been a no-brainer. Yet, Republicans sided with the Marxist Leftists and Lynch was confirmed. The ten Republicans who voted for confirmation were: Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell. The Senate voted 56–43 in favor of Lynch.
Mitch McConnell bald-facedly lied in October. While he was wooing conservatives for the upcoming midterm election, he stated that any nominee that was going to replace Eric Holder as “the nation’s highest law-enforcement official” must, “as a condition of his or her confirmation,” avoid “at all costs” Holder’s penchant for putting “political and ideological commitments ahead of the rule of law” — including as it “relates to the president’s acting unilaterally on immigration or anything else.” He fibbed big time and betrayed conservatives nationwide. It was his wheeling and dealing that led to the deal that was struck with Harry Reid and that cinched Lynch’s confirmation.
Here’s Mitch McConnell’s deal: If Democrats agree to stop blocking a human trafficking bill over some boilerplate language regarding abortion funding — a position that made them look unreasonable — Republicans, with all the leverage imaginable, will help confirm another attorney general nominee who will rubber stamp the president’s many overreaches. So, you see in the end, the Republicans voted for the continuation of the abuse of Executive power. It’s really just that simple. The reasons given for supporting Lynch included that she was a black woman and the best so far to come out the Obama White House – those are two breathtakingly horrible reasons for Lynch to be confirmed. It’s absolutely shameful politicking.
If you didn’t think Mitch McConnell was a lying, conniving Progressive before… you should now. Once the November election was won and behind him, McConnell went to work behind the scenes to whip up support for Loretta Lynch. He wielded his power from the shadows and strong-armed others into supporting her. By voting for her confirmation, he summarily flipped off any conservative who had been foolish enough to believe his campaign rhetoric. Suckers.
That doesn’t begin to quantify the perfidy, though. In order to get Lynch to the finish line, McConnell first had to break conservative opposition to allowing a final vote for her nomination. The majority leader thus twisted enough arms that 20 Republicans voted to end debate. This guaranteed that Lynch would not only get a final vote but would, in the end, prevail — Senators Hatch, Graham, Flake, Collins, and Kirk having already announced their intention to join all 46 Democrats in getting Lynch to the magic confirmation number of 51.
So, in addition to the aforementioned ten Republicans who said “aye” on the final vote to make Lynch attorney general, there are ten others who conspired in the GOP’s now routine parliamentary deception: Vote in favor of ending debate, knowing that this will give Democrats ultimate victory, but cast a meaningless vote against the Democrats in the final tally in order to pose as staunch Obama opponents when schmoozing the saps back home. These ten — John Thune (S.D.), John Cornyn (Texas), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Cory Gardner (Col.), Mike Rounds (S.D.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.) — are just as willfully complicit in Lynch’s confirmation and her imminent execution of Obama’s lawlessness.
This is not a Senate back to regular order. It is a disgrace, one that leads to the farce’s final act: On Monday, Loretta Lynch will ceremoniously take the oath to uphold the Constitution she has already told us she will undermine.
This is not about immigration, amnesty, health care, and the full spectrum of tough issues on which reasonable minds can differ. It is about the collapse of fundamental assumptions on which the rule of law rests. When solemn oaths are empty words, when missions such as “law enforcement” become self-parody, public contempt for Washington intensifies — in particular, on the political right, which wants to preserve the good society and constitutional order the rule of law sustains.
Mitch McConnell and the other Progressive RINOs are responsible for destroying mainstream America’s faith in their government and the rule of law. Our contempt and disgust for those in DC is now complete. The last time out for a presidential election, millions of Republicans were so disillusioned that they stayed home rather than voting. Obama won a second term that way. It appears that the Republican Party is intent on losing the next presidential race as well… they obviously don’t give a flying crap about their base. Ask yourself this… would McConnell be doing anything differently if he were Obama’s insider in the Senate?
“I voted against her because even though I walked into her confirmation process with an open mind, hoping and even expecting to like her, I couldn’t vote for her because she refused to answer any of my questions about prosecutorial discretion and its limits,” Sen. Mike Lee, whose grilling gave Lynch the most trouble, told The Federalist. “Even as I made the questions more and more obvious, and gave her hypotheticals which I thought made the question clearer, she refused to answer. It’s not because she doesn’t have the capacity, it’s because she had concluded that she wanted to share as little information as possible and, apparently, she responded well to coaching. I found that troubling.”
Lee had offered a hypothetical scenario wherein a governor wanted to raise the speed limit from 55 miles per-hour to 75 but could not convince the legislature. Could that governor decide to unilaterally instruct his highway patrol to not enforce the speed limit? Could he issue permits to drivers who wanted to exceed the limits established by statute? “I thought that was a pretty reasonable hypothetical,” Lee explained. She refused [to] discuss the scenario.
Much of the GOP’s opposition to Lynch was due to her support for Obama’s executive action on immigration. During her confirmation hearing, Lynch said she believes Obama’s plan was consistent with the Constitution, drawing outrage from Republicans who have said it’s an end-run around Congress.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the most vocal Republican against Obama’s plan, said the Senate shouldn’t confirm Lynch to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer given her support for what he has called an illegal move by Obama.
“The Senate must never confirm an individual to such an office as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and congressional authority,” he said Thursday. “No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.”
Obstructionist and evasive doesn’t quite do Loretta Lynch justice here. In my opinion, she is an anti-Constitutionalist and certainly a Liberal Progressive. I am convinced that Lynch is not only a racist, she will be just as bad or worse than Eric Holder and you can thank, in large part, Mitch McConnell and the Progressive Republicans for it. She also has a very special enthusiasm for civil asset forfeiture that she will up the stakes on across the nation. The fact that she is black and a woman should have nothing to do with her confirmation – her adherence and stances on the law and the Constitution should be all that counts. We are definitely at a Constitutional tipping point and Loretta “I Refuse To Answer” Lynch may very well be the Progressive straw that broke the Republic’s back.
Donate to NoisyRoom.net
Support American Values...