Live Anti-Trump Protests from JFK Airport 01/28/2017

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, Jan 28, 2017.

  1. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    One of the key figures behind the anti-Trump protests in Portland, Oregon has been taken into custody and is facing sexual abuse charges after a police investigation into his relationship with a teenage boy.

    Micah Rhodes, a ring-leader of Portland’s Resistance that led disorderly anti-Trump protests, The 23-year-old activist is a registered sex offender and was previously arrested for disorderly conduct during the anti-Trump protests after the election.

    Along with these accusations, Rhodes is also accused of having sex with an underage female, which he admitted, while he was being held on January 25.


    http://koin.com/2017/01/30/portlands-resistance-co-leader-charged-with-sexual-abuse/
     
  2. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Well at least HE ^doesn't discriminate between ( or is it among since there are now more than 2?) the sexes.
     
  3. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Chuckles

     
  4. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  6. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Spicer let NBC know that they are the source of bad info

     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. horninchicago

    horninchicago 10,000+ Posts

    Define the word betrayal. For crissakes, it was a betrayal. What a ******* ninny.
     
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. horninchicago

    horninchicago 10,000+ Posts

    Mr. Deez? Oops, sorry, Mr. Dee. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  11. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    and an actual SBUX in Saudi Arabia
    only send your driver to order for you

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Doesnt it seem like it is always tough for lefties to make a rational sounding argument without lying about the facts?


    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    "Trump’s executive order is so modest that the foundation of it is essentially existing law. That law was passed unanimously by both bodies of Congress in 2002. In fact, it garnered the support of 16 Democrat senators and 57 Democrat House members who are still serving in their respective bodies!

    Following 9/11, Congress passed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which addressed many of the insecurities in our visa tracking system. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously. The bill was originally sponsored by a group of bipartisan senators, including Ted Kennedy and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (F, 0%). Among other provisions, it restricted non-immigrant visas from countries designated as state sponsors of terror: See https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th...ns?overview=closed&q={"roll-call-vote":"all"}

    Given that Trump has backed down on green card holders, his executive order on “Muslim countries” is essentially current law, albeit only guaranteed for 90 days

    At present, only three of the countries — Sudan, Syria, and Iran — are designated as state sponsors by the State Department. At the time Democrats agreed to the ban in 2002, the State Department also included Libya and Iraq in that list. Although Libya and Iraq were on the list due to the presence of Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein as sponsors of terror, there is actually more of a reason to cut off visas now. Both are completely failed states with no reliable data to vet travelers. Both are more saturated with Islamist groups now than they were in 2002. The same goes for Yemen and Somalia. Neither country is a state sponsor of terror because neither has a functioning governments. They are terrorist havens.

    Thus, the letter of the law already applies to three of the countries, and the spirit of the law applies to all of them. Plus, the State Department could add any new country to the list, thereby making any future suspension of visas from those specific countries covered under §1735, in addition to the broad general power (INA 212(f)) to shut off any form of immigration. Given that Trump has backed down on green card holders, his executive order on “Muslim countries” is essentially current law, albeit only guaranteed for 90 days ......."

    https://www.conservativereview.com/...es-that-law-still-exists#sthash.f1IJXaSW.dpuf
     
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    We are better than them

     
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  16. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    "Exclusive: US May Have Let 'Dozens' of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees"

    "Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky -- who later admitted in court that they'd attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists' fingerprints.

    "We are currently supporting dozens of current counter-terrorism investigations like that," FBI Agent Gregory Carl, director of the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC), said ...."
    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131
     
  18. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Apparently the Feds did not learn. That story from 2013 is bookend ed by the testimony from DHS in 14 15 and this y they have no idea where thousands of visa holders are.
    DHS testified this week they still do not know.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2017
  19. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  20. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Life can imitate art.
    But here it's taken to a new extreme.
    It's like this guy was the model
    Of course, you must first reverse the angry poltics

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  22. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Bet MSM will not report that fact. Surprised AP did
     
  23. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    However .... another case in another court went the other way

    This one is a TRO

    The state is the plaintiff. They argue the EO violates
    -- the EP and due process clauses of the 5th.
    -- the establishment clause of the 1st.
    -- several federal laws around immigration and religious protection.
    The first two are easily dismissed, IMO. If they have anything at all, it will lie with federal statute. Quickly whether Section 1152(a) wholly supplanted 1182(f), despite no evidence on its face that it did. There is no conflict between those sections of Title 8 (they can be read together). And, IMO, even if there were conflict (unlikely), the President would still have this power under the Constitution (in matters involving foreign threats to national security).

     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2017
  25. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I've had more time to look at the Washington case --
    Suit was filed Jan 30
    DOJ replied Feb 2 with 34-page brief arguing the state lacked standing, the state cannot bring a parens patriae action, the state was unlikely to prevail on the merits, it has shown no irreparable harm, and that any relief must be limited to plaintiff states.
    Here is the DOJ brief, if interested

     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2017
  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    On Feb 3, after a hearing, the district court issued a nationwide injunction, barring implementation of the EO.

    The PDF of the order is 7 pages, but the analysis is threadbare
    There is one paragraph describing the procedural background
    There are two paragraphs which recite the standards for granting a temporary restraining order (your basic copy-paste boilerplate).
    And the actual legal analysis lasts just two paragraphs

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2017
  27. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    This order has no actual legal analysis. It basically just repeats the headers of the Washington brief

    One of the requirements for a TRO is that plaintiff show it is likely to succeed on the merits. But this court did not look at this at all.

    The standing argument is handled summarily with parens patriae, but courts have rejected this principle since Massachusetts v. Mellon (262 US 447) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5313340915719913598&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
    See also Virginia v. Sebelius https://origin-www.bloomberglaw.com...belius_656_F3d_253_4th_Cir_2011_Co?1486223051

    Bottom line, this court did not explain its ruling. The analysis is conclusory, with little to no substance. The judge only wrote a single sentence about the standing question. The judge did not explain why the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits. He did not write a single word about plaintiff's arguments on Due Process, Equal Protection, Establishment Clause.

    Judges have a duty to explain their rulings, even when the case is fast-moving, far-reaching and may involve Constitutional issues. The judges in the cases in Boston and Brooklyn had more of an excuse here, since they had to throw together overnight rulings. But this judge had several days to write something.

    As Hamilton explained in The Federlist No. 78: The judiciary is the "least dangerous branch" having"neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Meaning = they MUST explain themselves. This judge failed that duty. As a result, the higher courts will be in a tough spot since they cannot know what the judge was thinking (how can an appellate court decide whether to uphold an injunction if they do not know why the judge issued the injunction?)

    This order is going up to 9th Circuit right now. The SG is also supposed to be preparing a request for emergency stay to Kennedy/SCOTUS. Here is what i think will happen -- if the 9th Cir refuses to stay the order, the issue will get to the SCOTUS pretty fast. Where, as you will recall, there is presently no 5th tie-breaking vote.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2017
  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  29. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Some more polling on this issue

    Rasmussen -- likely voters (Jan 31-Feb 1, after the protesting/rioting started)

    “The federal government has banned refugees from all countries from entering the United States for the next four months until there is a better system in place to keep out individuals who are terrorist threats. Do you favor or oppose such a ban?”
    The majority -- 52% favored
    43% opposed
    6% unsure

    By political affiliation --
    82% of Reps approved of the refugee freeze/ 15% disapproved
    54% of Indies approved/ 40% disapproved
    22% of Dems approved (over 1 out of ev 5 Dem) / 71% opposed

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...e_middle_east/most_still_favor_refugee_freeze
    -----------------------------
    These numbers are buttressed by an earlier poll that showed a majority of all voters want a dramatic reduction of immigration into the US. This was from a non-partisan poll taken before Election Day

    54% of voters would like to see immigration levels halved or reduced to zero
    58% agreed illegal aliens should not be allowed to stay in the US at all
    http://cis.org/camarota/survey-highlights-popularity-of-immigration-enforcement
     
  30. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

Share This Page