Skip to content

9th Circuit Court gives Donald Trump a partial victory on asylum ban

August 16, 2019

  Back in July Donald Trump issued a rule which is being called an asylum ban in the media, but that term is not quite right. This rule would cut back on asylum claims by requiring an asylum seeker to apply for asylum in a country they travel through before getting to the United States.

  Shortly thereafter a judge blocked the new rule from going into effect nationwide while a challenge to the rule makes its way through the court system. Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed the President a partial victory by narrowing the previous decision and allowing the so-called ban to go into effect in Texas and New Mexico.

  Here is more:

A federal appeals court on Friday handed the Trump administration a partial victory in its quest for an asylum ban, appearing to clear the way for imposing it along the border in New Mexico and Texas, at least temporarily.

While the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to block the ban, it narrowed the nationwide injunction to the 9th Circuit, which encompasses district courts in the border states of Arizona and California.

  Most of the illegal immigrants make their way into the country through Texas and New Mexico so this decision is a pretty significant victory for the President…at least for now. The 9th Circuit Court also ruled that in all likelihood the rule violated Federal law because it was rushed through and did not have the proper waiting period for the public to comment on it. Because of this I would expect the law to eventually be struck down before all is said and done.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium


Donald Trump’s response to Chris Cuomo is a perfect illustration of why ‘red flag’ laws are dangerous

August 14, 2019

  After some people did some things in El Paso and Dayton Donald Trump came out in favor of so-called “red Flag” legislation which would allow the confiscation of a person’s weapons without due process and without a crime having been committed.

  Lindsey Graham has been taking about “red Flag” gun laws for months and now other Republicans are beginning to coalesce around the idea of this confiscatory gun law. 

  As you can tell, I oppose this type of legislation because of the potential for abuse. In addition to a scorned lover or a disgruntled employee or employer using this type of law to seek revenge on a person there is always the real possibility the government will abuse it also. Could political speech on the internet cause a politician to determine a person is dangerous? I believe this scenario is more likely than the former one I proposed.

  If  you have been anywhere near the internet over the last couple of days you might have heard that Chris Cuomo had a little bit of a nervous breakdown and went on a profanity-laced rant over the word “fredo.” Donald Trump, as he is want to do, decided to troll the CNN personality on Twitter and while he probably thought he was being clever the President actually gave us a perfect example of the dangers of “red flag” legislation.

  What more needs to be said? This tweet encapsulates all of our concerns over “red flag” legislation and the possible abuse of the law by a person seeking retribution against another–but even more frightening by a politician against a person on the other side of the aisle.

  If this law is passed in the next Congress there will be a Democratic President in 2020 because gun owners will not go to the polls. The Democrats have been trying to criminalize the opposition for years and you can bet they will use “red flag” laws to thwart the Second Amendment and confiscate weapons for political posts people make on the internet they consider dangerous–and by dangerous I mean posts that disagree with the liberal agenda. 

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Senate Democrats threaten the Supreme Court with retribution over upcoming Second Amendment ruling

August 13, 2019

  There is a New York Second Amendment case making its way to the Supreme Court and some Senate Democrats have a message for the highest court in the land: either this decision comes down in their favor, which of course means it comes down against the Second Amendment, or they will remake the court by restructuring it. The idea of packing the court has been gaining momentum on the alt-left but now the Senate Democrats are brazenly threatening the Supreme Court.

  Here is more:

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to “heal” the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

  This is truly remarkable! I cannot recall a party in a lawsuit making a threat like this to any court before. I do remember Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the Capitol Police Chief but I think even that pales on comparison to trying to intimidate the court because you know you are standing on shaky Constitutional grounds.

  Ironically these Democrats are accusing the Supreme Court of partisanship and is simply asking for more partisanship in the opposite direction, proving they only disapprove of the perceived partisanship because it is not in their favor–but they intend to change that…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Sunday, August 11th open thread: ‘Can U Dig It?’

August 11, 2019

“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)

  open-threadHere is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.

 You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right. 

  Here is Pop Will Eat Itself doing “Can U Dig It?” live in 1991.

Joe Biden: ‘We choose truth over facts’

August 9, 2019

  footinmouthWhile most of the attention Joe Biden is receiving today is about his poor kids versus white kids gaffe it is not all that surprising the former Vice President would make such a Freudian Slip. After all, he has apparently never met a segregationist in the Congress he could not get along with and he has a history of racially insensitive remarks. You all remember the Seven Eleven/Indian accent comment, right?

  So I thought we should listen to Joe Biden’s other gaffe from yesterday and that is when he admitted what most of us have been saying about Democrats for some time–they never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

  Now,  you may be saying that was a simple slip of the tongue and he obviously meant to say “we choose truth over fiction” but you must remember that in today’s day and age the question quid est veritas is often answered with truth means different things to different people. In an age where truth is believed to be subjective yet facts are immutable one does have to make this choice and we know which choice the Democrats have made. Thank you Joe Biden for telling the truth. (See what I did there?)

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

NBC contributor claims Donald Trump is raising the flag to full staff on August 8th as a signal to neo-Nazis

August 7, 2019

  I can still remember when Barack Obama was President and there were people on the right who were calling him a dictator in waiting, I remember people comparing him to Hitler, and calling him a communist only to be rebuffed by the left, which called such attacks dangerous and irresponsible.

  So over the course of the last couple of years I have found it slightly amusing to see the left make the same claims about Donald Trump. Part of me felt as if they were simply doing this and saying these things as a bit of payback after having had to defend Barack Obama from these types of attacks bit now I realize they are serious and they do not even realize what hypocrites they have become.

  However the rhetoric has really heated up in the last several months with liberals calling anybody who voted for Donald Trump neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, misogynists, and whatever vile insult they can come up with. Since some people did some things in El Paso and Dayton recently the rhetoric has gotten out of hand with the Presidential candidates and the Democratic members of the Congress trying to outdo each other in equating the President and his supporters with racists and Nazis but a contributor won the prize for most outlandish comment when he said the reason the flags would be raised up to full staff on August 8th was because it was a signal to neo-Nazis.

  Here is more:

The president said that we will fly our flags at half-mast until August 8th. That`s 8/8. Now, I’m not going to imply that he did this deliberately but I am using it as an example of the ignorance of the adversary that`s being demonstrated by the White House.

The numbers 88 are very significant in neo-Nazi and white supremacist movement. Why? Because the letter H is the eighth letter of the alphabet and to them, the numbers 88 together stand for “Heil Hitler.” So we’re going to be raising the flag back up at dusk on 8/8. No one is thinking about this. No one is giving him advice or he’s rejecting the advice. So, understand your adversary to counter the adversary.

  The reason nobody is talking about this is because that is a reach of epic proportions but of course NBC did not bother to challenge him on this. At least he gave the President the benefit of the doubt by saying maybe he did not know but still uses this to mock the President’s ignorance. 

  This is getting out of control but this is exactly what the left wants because they are hoping to use this chaos to win back power and they do not care how much violence they incite in the meantime.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Republicans coalesce around confiscatory ‘red flag’ gun control legislation

August 6, 2019

  Now that our Executive Order issuing, bump stock banning President has thrown his support behind confiscatory “red Flag” gun control legislation it looks like the Republicans are getting on board with the gun grabbing Democrats and it is only a matter of time before “red flag” legislation is passed. Here is more:

Congressional Republicans, under pressure to respond to this weekend’s massacres, appear to be coalescing around legislation to help law enforcement to take guns from those who pose an imminent danger — a measure that, if signed into law, would be the most significant gun safety legislation enacted in 20 years.

“Red flag” laws such as this might not be as momentous — or controversial — as the now-expired assault weapons ban or the instant background check system, both of which were enacted in 1994 as part of President Bill Clinton’s sprawling crime bill. But they may be politically feasible.

With President Trump endorsing the idea, a number of Republicans — including Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican — are embracing the concept. Mr. Thune told his hometown newspaper, The Argus Leader, that he was “confident Congress will be able to find common ground on the so-called red flag issue.”

Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, has asked three committee chairmen to “reflect on the subjects the president raised” and hold bipartisan talks of “potential solutions.”

  Lindsey Graham has been on board with this type of legislation for awhile and actually started talking about it in March so it looks pretty certain something is going to happen unless something changes.

  Of course nobody wants guns in the hands of people who are dangerous but the problem with this legislation is that it would allow the confiscation of a person’s weapons before a crime has been committed and it is too open to abuse by people with a vendetta against somebody–such as an ex-lover or spouse, a disgruntled employee or co-worker. Who gets to decide what constitutes a “red flag?”

  We all know how even the narrowest of legislation gets expanded over time and it would not be surprising to see being against certain liberal political views considered a “red flag” in the near future. When Donald Trump loses his reelection bid the people who are calling all of his supporters Nazis, white nationalists, and terrorists will then be determining what a “red flag” is.

  This legislation needs to be defeated but with the support of Donald Trump and a weak Republican party I do not see how we can stop this.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium