The Ongoing Effort to Remove Trump: A Coup d’etat is Brewing

Coup d etat

by Diane Rufino, May 21, 20 17

KEEP AN EYE on the POLITICAL COUP that is brewing. It is coordinated at many levels.

A coup d’etat is defined as an overthrow of government, and hence the state, by the illegal and overt seizure of power by the military or other elites within the state apparatus. James Downton explains: “Unlike the coup d’etat that sees a military or popular figure lead a minority resistance or majority force into power over the legitimate government, this coup d’etat is leaderless and exposes some of the deepest fissures in our system of government. This coup d’etat represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.”

Ever since I shockingly watched as a news reporter pondered on air what would happen if both Donald Trump and Mike Pence were assassinated during the inauguration ceremony, and ever since I witnessed the Women’s March on January 21… And as I continue to observe how members of Congress have absolutely lost all semblance of obedience to the Constitution and respect for the Electoral College outcome as they attack Trump for every word and breath he has taken so far in office, as I disappointingly note how the liberal courts are doing their best to re-write the Constitution and federal laws duly enacted by prior administrations, and as I listen disbelievingly each day to the conjured, false narrative that the Russians interfered with the presidential election and that there was collusion between Putin and Trump and his team in order to rob Hillary of her victory, and as I read about the audacious repeated leaks from government in violation of our federal Espionage and other laws in order to frustrate and taint our new president, and I see college students act like uncivilized savages on their campuses when any conservative speaker dares to be invited, and as I listen dumbfounded to members of Congress call for Trump’s impeachment when no action has warranted this action, I know that we are in the midst of a coup d’etat. I’ve made this allegation for months now and I can’t help but notice how many are now saying the very same thing.

I’m still, to some extent, affected deeply by the dark depths to which the Trump-hating media went on that glorious inauguration day. Who can ever forget it?  During the inauguration events, CNN contributor Brian Todd had the audacity to openly brainstorm what would happen if President-elect Donald Trump and Vice-President-elect Mike Pence were assassinated.  (Who would be in charge if an attack hit the incoming president, vice-president, and Congressional leaders just as the transfer of power is underway?”)  Their conclusion? According to their diabolic, yet hypothetical scheme, it would be a member of the Obama cabinet who would be selected to take over as president. As Todd explained: “According to the Constitution, if the president and vice president are killed or incapacitated, next in line is the House Speaker, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate……  But what if something happened to them at the inauguration, too?”

He continued: “After that, it goes down the list of cabinet secretaries, starting with secretary of state. On the day of the inauguration, as a precaution, a cabinet secretary called the ‘designated presidential successor’ will not attend the inauguration, ready to step in if something happens. But it won’t be a Trump cabinet secretary, since none of them have been confirmed yet. It will be an Obama appointee.”

But Todd wasn’t the only one to mention a hypothetical assassination. Before his report, news anchor Wolf Blitzer led into the story by asking: “What if an incoming president and his immediate successors were wiped out on day one?”  As anyone can recall, tensions had never been higher than they were on election night, when ALL polls were proven wrong and Donald Trump was elected president, and in all the days after, even leading up to Inauguration Day. After all, that was what the Women’s March was all about and thousands upon thousands turned out for that. The remarks by Blitzer and Todd were highly reckless given the tension level and the frazzled, fragile psyche of many progressives who wouldn’t need any more than a suggestion to commit such an unspeakable act. How many “crazed lone gunmen” have assassinated our political figures in the past? How many have done so with less of a provocation? We are told that Jack Ruby silenced Lee Harvey Oswald in order to spare Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of seeing the man who murdered her husband go on trial.

And so, as Downton aptly describes it, this brewing coup d’etat “represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.”  A full-on smear campaign is being coordinated at many levels, including by rogue officials remaining from the previous administration, by a group of exceedingly ignorant and partisan US politicians, by statist Republicans, and most brazenly, by the leftist media (ie, over 90% of the media). There is only one word to describe their conduct – other than “treasonous” and “rebellious” – and that is “deception.”  They are trying to deceive the American people of the worth of the man they elected. It is a smear campaign and nothing more. Downton explains it best: “The attack on Trump from within is coordinated and purposefully geared to make a lack of evidence seem like a mountain of evidence and be as damning as possible, although what it truly amounts to is a paper tiger. With the administrative state leaking and the partisans giving context, the media gins up a plot that declares Trump guilty of crimes of which there is no concrete evidence he committed. This is how you build the consensus behind a coup d’etat.”

We the People need to figure out a way to help conservatives ORGANIZE across the country so that if the government devolves according to the leftist plan and all hell breaks loose, we can put a plan in place to defend our rights under the Declaration (with respect to government) and to prevent the evil from taking hold. If government cannot function for the people who elected this president, then we don’t need government at all. It will have ceased to be a constitutional republic and will have officially become a political oligarchy, where a select group of political heavyweights run the country.

We have a dark group that is using the Democratic Party for their own purposes and a dark group within our government that continues to ignore us and work against us, that continues to subvert the useful ends of government, and that continues to want to un-do the legitimate and constitutional election of Donald Trump – a man who won the presidency against all odds and against a powerful machinery that did everything it could to prevent it from happening.  These dark forces have, as their ultimate goal, the undoing of the values and principles in our Declaration of Independence and rendering of our precious Constitution as nothing more than a piece of useless parchment paper, all in order to control absolutely “We the People.”

The Democratic Party, the progressive movement, the likes of George Soros, entrenched government elites, members of the Shadow Government saw the election of Hillary Clinton as the cement to consolidate power of the administrative state – the government that progressives have long hoped for. These groups of political elites and these multi-millionaires and billionaires, all believing that their kind have the right to power and the right to determine the future of this country view the rest of us as pawns, as mere putty in their hands who, with the right “incentives” will vote for their agenda and surrender in the process our precious liberties and our virtues. Virtues and principles and individual liberties, after all, must be surrendered for unelected individuals to assume total power.

For those of us who can recognize the precarious situation facing our country right now, we also have noticed the trend that has gotten us to this point… the massive growth of a “dependency” culture, the massive expansion of an “entitlement” mentality, the persistent division of individuals along race, culture, gender, and sexuality lines, the increasing attacks on morality and the laws of nature, and the increasing immigration of those who don’t have traditional “American values” as their primary reason for coming here. For decades, we have predicted these growing trends as an intentional design to erode our nation’s foundations.  “If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.”  [See James Downton’s article in The Federalist at http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/19/watching-slow-motion-coup-detat/ ]

If it looks like it, feels like it, smells like it, acts like it…   we call it what it is…… TYRANNY.

I can’t help but sense a similarity to the John F. Kennedy administration.  Kennedy vowed to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces.” The CIA could not allow this to happen and the next thing you know, Kennedy was removed. The assassination of JFK let to a complete reversal of policy, particularly in foreign policy and with the Vietnam War.  Many have termed the assassination (and a government conspiracy, as concluded by the Senate Select Committee on Assassination in 1979) “a coup d’etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings.” (partial quote taken from the movie JFK).  Trump has made it a point (indeed, a campaign pledge) to seek the dismantling of the administrative state.  While the CIA during Kennedy’s administration did not fight back publicly, the administrative state (the secret government) is clearly more than capable of fighting back and seizing additional power through leaks, fabrication, partisan loyalty, and incest with the media. The removal of Trump, according to their plans, can be accomplished by non-violent means. The American people, after all, are a one-issue people (abortion, gay rights, transgender rights, women’s rights, illegal rights, entitlement rights) and are therefore without principle or sense of civic duty. They are meek.  Conservatives may get angered, Democrats believe, but they quickly go back to their routines –  living their lives and working; they don’t have the time or the stomach for prolonged protest or resistance.

In short, the powers that be are determined – and capable – of ensuring their survival.  Since they couldn’t achieve that end through the election of Hillary Clinton, they are prepared to go the more insidious route – the coup d’etat.

If you are as concerned as I am and believe there is a sense of urgency to our current situation, I ask that you consider what we can do and what we MUST do. The witch-hunt against Trump is historic and the liberals will not rest until they over-throw the will of the people, effect a coup in this country and erect a government not of the people’s choosing and not concerned with their legitimate issues. Real patriots would not allow this to happen. We have to assess all that is happening, what the counter-efforts are, what the likelihood is that their evil measures will be effective, and again, what we can or SHOULD do.  “A good patriot must always be willing to defend his country, even against his government.”

“Is a government worth preserving when it lies to the people?  It’s become a dangerous country when you cannot trust anyone…. when you cannot tell the truth.  I say ‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall’!”  [Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK]

References:

James Downton, “We Are Witnessing a Slow-Motion Coup d’Etat,” The Federalist, May 19, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/19/watching-slow-motion-coup-detat/

“CNN Prophesizes Trump, Pence Getting Assassinated During Inauguration,” Sputnik News, January 19, 2017.   Referenced at:  https://sputniknews.com/us/201701191049784915-shoddy-cnn-reporting-trump-inauguration/

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Speech Isn’t Free Anymore

SNOWFLAKES - good one

by Diane Rufino, May 20, 2017

George Washington once warned: “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”   Indeed, the first and most essential principle of a free society is allowing its citizens to have a free flow of words in an open forum.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment –  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first phrase of the amendment controls the language of the entire amendment:  “Congress shall make no law….

Then it explains how Congress cannot regulate five things:

  • Religion (It cannot make a law establishing an official national, government-sanctioned religion, NOR can it pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of one’s religion
  • Speech
  • Press
  • Assembly (peaceful assembly)
  • Petition government

These 5 things are considered essential to individual liberty and to a free society (“Ordered Liberty”)

Now, Liberty is understood by our Founders to be the extent to which one can freely exercise his or her rights – without burdening another’s free exercise in his or her rights.

The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress, which convened in New York City in March 1789.  The anti-Federalists forced James Madison to provide a Bill of Rights to amend the US Constitution that was drafted at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 and adopted in 1788 by the requisite number of states – 9 (as per Article VII).  The Bill of Rights (our first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was later ratified on December 15, 1791 and had, as its primary purpose, to provide express limits to government power as it relates to the individual. In fact, the preamble to the Bill of Rights (which everyone should read and memorize) reads:

“In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of government powers, the Conventions of a number of the States, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire to add further declaratory and restrictive clauses. Such further restrictions will increase public confidence in the federal government and will best insure the beneficent ends of that institution.”

****  This is why we say that the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant us our rights; it protects them. The federal government is one of limited powers and on top of that, it is prohibited from legislating or otherwise regulating the fundamental rights and civil rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

The purpose of free speech is to encourage individuals to contribute their ideas and opinions to others – to put them out there in the so-called “marketplace of ideas.”

The metaphor “marketplace of ideas” is based on a market economy – on free exchange in the market. In such a market, many products are available and we, as rational (and hopefully, fairly informed and intelligent) consumers, choose freely what we want from among those available after careful comparison and after careful weighing of their relative quality. 

Free Speech makes every person who wishes to convey a thought, an idea, an opinion a competitor in the marketplace of ideas. Each speaker – whether it is vocal, visual, on paper, or on the internet, bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas.  The true test of the thought or idea or opinion is how strongly it is accepted in that marketplace.

Because the contribution to the marketplace of ideas is considered so important, we don’t want to inhibit peoples’ right to do so. How else are we able to discuss what our government is doing and determine if it is bad or good… Right or wrong?  How else are we able to determine which candidates are best able to serve us in government?  And that’s why we have the First Amendment’s Guarantee of Free Speech and a Free Press.

Not all speech, however, is protected. There are basically 9 categories of speech NOT protected by the First Amendment:

  • Obscenity
  • Fighting words
  • Defamation (including libel and slander) ***
  • Child pornography
  • Perjury ***
  • Blackmail
  • Incitement to imminent lawless action
  • True threats
  • Solicitations to commit crimes
  • Some experts add treason

***  You’ll notice that speech that is not truthful is not protected by the First Amendment. Untruths add nothing to the “marketplace of ideas” that the First Amendment was established to create.  (See Defamation and Perjury)

You may have heard folks on the left claim that “Hate Speech” isn’t protected.  Most notably, you may have heard this in the last month or so by one-time presidential candidate Howard Dean. But this is false. “Hate Speech” may sound like something that isn’t protected by the Constitution but the category doesn’t actually exist – at least in first amendment jurisprudence. It is an amorphous term that means one thing to one person and something else to another person. It is a term that is capable of constantly being enlarged, and in fact, if you look at the growth of the snowflake movement, you can see how easily it is to offend a liberal. How quickly do you think it will take this current group of thin-skinned emotional basket-cases to label speech that insults them as “hate speech”?

To be clear….  You have every right to say mean and hurtful things.

It is no coincidence that Speech is addressed in the first of the amendments to the Constitution. It was deemed to be critical in a free society. Speech is important because with speech and press, we are able to alert our fellow citizens when our rights and civil liberties are under attack. It is our first line of defense when government becomes corrupt and tyrannical.  We exercise the first amendment to criticize and protest government so that we don’t have to exercise the second against it!!

College Campuses and Snowflakes

Years ago, college campuses were popular havens for free speech. Students and speakers could freely express and exchange ideas, even ones that were unpopular. Berkeley was once seen as the home of the Free Speech movement, if you can believe it.

So, what happened?  What happened to Free Speech?

Back in February, Berkeley students covering themselves in black face masks went berserk when conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was set to speak. They caused over $100,000 in damage to the campus and promoted the university to cancel the event.

Last month, Ann Coulter was set to speak there. First she was invited, then uninvited, and then invited again – as long as she could be scheduled on a day when students didn’t have any actual classes on campus. When the school told her they could not assure her safety, even though her safety was at risk, she was forced to cancel her visit.

Berkeley students successfully shut down conservative speech. By violence. By intimidating. By threats.

Nowadays, it is fairly common for college students to shout over and shout down even moderate-leaning speakers. If they don’t like the message or the speaker, they aren’t going to let them speak. This is happening all over the country.  You have to ask yourself why we call these students Progressives, even thought that is the movement to which they belong. They certainly aren’t for the progression of civilized thought and conduct. They are not for the progression of freedom and liberty. Rather, they are for its regression.

Today’s liberal college students require safe spaces, trigger warnings, and days off from class in order to deal with their feelings. Our universities, bastions of liberal thought, have developed these concepts to help students deal with feelings rather than prepare them to deal with facts and articulation. Couple this with the constant smearing of any intellectual or political opponent as “racist” or “bigoted” or “homophobic,” etc, and they are succeeding in producing a generation of closed-minded individuals who are increasingly intolerant.  They are increasingly hostile to the notion of tolerance when it comes to views that are different from theirs. It is if they cannot intellectually or emotionally deal with opposite views. I guess you can say that today’s students are becoming increasingly intolerant of tolerance.

And we all know that the intolerance essentially comes from one side. Imagine if Tucker Carlson shouted down a guest on his show simply because he didn’t agree with the opposing viewpoint or imagine if Dinesh D’Souza refused to answer a question from someone in his audience who disagreed with him. They’d be labeled “hypocrites” and “intolerant.”

Today’s generation – and mainly those on college campuses – are treated like babies…  and that’s because that’s how they act.

We call the young liberal generation a bunch of snowflakes and there is a reason we call them this. “Snowflake” is a term that refers to fragility. These young people have an inflated sense of their self-worth and are therefore offended easily. They are so fragile that when they hear the slightest thing that causes them discomfort or uneasiness or that insults them, they melt. They have a melt-down. They are too easily offended and hence need “safe spaces” to retreat to. In these safe spaces, they are surrounded by those who think exactly like they do. [In the real world, we are told by the government that we have no right to be surrounded by only those who think like ourselves; we must be diversified!]  These young liberals have been coddled probably most of their lives, or at least indoctrinated by their parents or pandered to by society. And now they are ill-equipped intellectually and emotionally to face the real world. They are certainly unable to face life’s challenges (such as the 2016 election) and unable to confront opposing opinions with any amount of dignity.

To see how bad this situation has become, look at how this term “snowflake” has morphed in its definition. Back in May 2016, when Donald Trump was campaigning and all of a sudden it appeared that people all over the country were able to connect with him and were articulating very convincingly why he should be president, the term “snowflake” was defined as “an overly-sensitive person who is incapable of dealing with any opinions that differ from their own.”  It was used mainly in describing a liberal.. a Democrat. It was used to describe those who would show up and protest Trump rallies and do nothing but shout insults. After Trump was elected and the progressive protest-fest ensued, the definition was modified. Now it means “Any entitled millennial progressive tard who runs to her ‘safe space’ to play with stress toys and coloring books’ when triggered by various innocuous microaggressions.”  In other words, it describes a person incapable of dealing with persons who don’t think exactly like they do.

Universities becoming safe havens for snowflakes serves no good purpose, except I suppose for keeping young people blindly indoctrinated. What is being stolen from today’s college students is the ability to learn how to think about complex issues while in an educational setting (a relatively safe, coddling environment) so that they can be equipped to engage with the diverse array of ideas in the real world. And that type of diversity (the diversity of ideas and the diversity of thought) is far more important practically than the type of diversity that colleges love to brag about – the diversity of their student body based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.

An open and robust discussion with a wide array of ideas and opinions is how we expand our knowledge and deepen our understanding. This is how we figure out what we believe in and how strongly we believe it. We don’t strengthen what we believe in by silencing or shaming or defaming those we don’t agree with.

The Right of Free Speech is Almost Absolute –

The right of Speech and Expression is almost absolute. We absolutely have the right to protest…   It’s one of the very reasons for the First Amendment in the first place.  In fact, the standard by which we gauge how strongly we embrace our right of free speech is how well we safeguard and respect people’s right to engage in unpopular speech.  We have the right to use our speech to counter someone else’s speech. What we DON’T have is a right to SILENCE someone else by using violence or intimidation.  We have the right to use Hate Speech, it’s true, but we shouldn’t.  And let me explain why.

When you use violence and intimidation – and even hate speech, it has a “chilling effect” on free speech. It results in self-censorship. People – candidates, politicians, writers, speakers, bloggers, radio and TV personalities – begin to watch what they say and keep their commentary “safe.”  This doesn’t serve the “marketplace of ideas” at all.  We in the conservative community and the Tea Party movement know all too well about self-censorship. We lived in fear for years under President Obama when he was using the IRS to target our “viewpoint” for audits and harassment.

Violence and intimidation quiets a speaker who simply would rather not deal with the threats and the smears and the protests. Where would our country be now if great men and women felt it was best to self-censure?

I think we all need a refresher course on what the First Amendment means and what its purpose is in our Constitution.  The First Amendment is about prohibiting the federal government – the government capable of consolidating and consuming the individual States – from passing any laws that affect free speech. It has absolutely nothing to do with the speech or expression of a private person and whether that speech or expression offends the sensibility of another person or group of people.

If you are offended by someone’s speech – by his or her ideas or opinions, then you have the right to counter with more compelling speech, with better ideas, better opinions, better arguments. That’s what you SHOULD do.  This is what universities should be teaching our students. This is what they should be preparing them for. They shouldn’t be teaching them to be emotional snowflakes and intellectual cowards.

As mentioned earlier, the standard by which we gauge how strongly we embrace our right of free speech is how well we safeguard and respect people’s right to engage in unpopular speech.  Judging according to this standard, today’s college students have no respect for the First Amendment and would just as soon allow the right of free speech to be doomed…..  except as it applies to themselves, of course.

I think we all need a refresher course on what Free Speech is and what the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech means. It secures a place not only in the Bill of Rights, but it is the subject of the very first of those essential amendments. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech is about prohibiting the federal government – the government capable of consolidating and consuming the individual States – from passing any laws that affects or burdens an individual’s freedom of speech and expression. Together with the guarantee of religious liberty, the First Amendment was added to the Constitution to prevent the government from establishing an absolute tyranny over the conscience and the thoughts and expression of We the People and our ability to comment critically on our government.  Thought control and the control of information is the tool of a tyrannical government.  Maximilien Robespierre, who manned the guillotine during the French Revolution, said: “The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.”

President Harry Truman spoke similar words in an address to Congress in 1950: ““Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

Tens of thousands of brave Americans, motivated by the words and sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence, fought and died to break the chains of British tyranny so that those sentiments could flourish here. These freedoms and these foundations are endangered when Americans are ignorant as to our founding and are otherwise unwilling to engage in the discussion necessary to keep our First Amendment vibrant and intact.

References:

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).  Referenced at:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1

Professor Daniel Dreiisbach, “Origins and Dangers of the Wall of Separation Between Church and State,” Imprimis (Hillsdale College), Volume 35, Number 10 (Oct. 2006).  Referenced at:  https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/origins-and-dangers-of-the-wall-of-separation-between-church-and-state/

Bill Fortenberry, “What Did Jefferson Mean By the Phrase ‘Wall of Separation’?“ The Federalist Papers (blog), November 1, 2013.  Referenced at:  http://thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-did-jefferson-mean-by-the-phrase-wall-of-separation

Charles C. Cooke, “Howard Dean is Peddling Hate Speech Hogwash,” The National Review, April 21, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/446941/howard-dean-hate-speech-not-protected-first-amendment

Dave Rubin, “Ann Coulter’s ‘Hate Speech’ is Protected by the First Amendment, The Rubin Report.  Referenced at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Fm9z4LGDs

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The IRS Scandal: A Study in Government Tyranny

JEFFERSON - When the People Fear Government, there is Tyranny by Diane Rufino, April 19, 2017

“The Obama administration and its fronts in the Senate accomplished what Richard Nixon wasn’t able to accomplish, which was the suppression of an entire movement against him. That’s how you steal an election; you make sure your political opponents can’t open an office.”  —  Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which has sued the IRS to obtain documents related to the controversy

From 2010 until 2013, the IRS, under President Barack Obama, intentionally targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups applying for 501(c) tax-exemption by delaying the processing of their applications, requesting burdensome information from them that was later deemed unnecessary, and by intimidating them into withdrawing their applications. The scheme was intended to intimidate and/or stop Tea Party and other conservative groups from engaging in political activity in the 2012 presidential election and in subsequent mid-term elections. The abuse by the IRS was orchestrated in response to the growing Tea Party/ conservative/ grassroots movement (which all of a sudden were applying in great numbers for tax-exempt organization status and which were donating in large amounts to Republican candidates and elections). The actions of the government, spearheaded by President Obama, were a clear example of government tyranny – using terror and intimidation (the full resources of the federal government) to silence political opposition.

As Rep. Darrell Issa and Rep. Jim Jordan of the House Oversight Committee explained in a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koshinen: “This revelation that the IRS sent 1.1 million pages of nonprofit tax-return data — including confidential taxpayer information — to the FBI confirms suspicions that the IRS worked with the Justice Department to facilitate the potential investigation of nonprofit groups engaged in lawful political speech.”

To date, and there is no surprise here, the IRS and its officials, have escaped justice and punishment. Its aggressive 3-year campaign against conservative grassroots organizations to suppress their first amendment rights of speech, expression, and assembly, and its illegal leaking of private tax information for political purposes, and its turning of the executive branch of the federal government into a thug ring for the Democratic Party has been explained away as mere incompetency and a lack of proper oversight.

The fact that Lois Lerner escaped prison, that records were destroyed in a campaign to obstruct justice and allow other guilty parties to escape punishment, and that John Koskinen retain his job as the IRS commissioner are scandals in and of themselves. Last fall, House Republicans took steps to have John Koskinen removed by impeaching him for his role in covering up Lerner’s crimes, his misleading a congressional investigation, his obstruction of Congress (defying a subpoena), and outright lying to Congress. Unfortunately, on December 6, House GOP leaders managed to derail impeachment, forcing the debate back to a committee for more study, where it silently died when Congress adjourned at the end of the year.

While most believe the scandal and the government abuse subsided in 2013 when the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released an audit report concluded that the IRS had in fact used inappropriate criteria to identify, target, and then harass Tea Party and other conservative organizations in their applications for 501(c) tax-exempt status, the fact is that the IRS continued to improperly use its power to influence the 2016 presidential campaign and apparently still has hold-over rogue elements from the Obama administration who are secretly trying to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency. How else could Donald Trump’s tax returns have been leaked?  How else was it possible that Trump’s 1995 tax information was leaked during the 2016 presidential election season to Clinton’s team, just in time for the presidential debates? How can we forget her accusation and then the ensuing political pressure from the media for Trump to release his tax returns.  Remember what she said in the September 2016 debate;  “You’ve gotta ask yourself, why won’t he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be. Third, we don’t know all of his business dealings, but we have been told, through investigative reporting that, he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes. Because the only years that anybody has ever seen, were a couple of years where he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license. And they showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax.”

And how was it that an “anonymous” package with Trump’s 2005 tax return and tax info was mailed to the New York Times in early March?  [See my article “How Quickly Trump’s Tax Return Story Has Disappeared,” April 23, 2017].  Someone at the IRS, apparently still having the capability of treating it as a rogue agency, committed a felony. And Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, who received the tax returns from the Times and who was salivating over the chance to humiliate Trump, chose to insinuate that our President was the criminal and not the felon from the federal government.

Why do I suggest that the “leaked” tax information during the presidential campaign season and the anonymous package to the NY Times containing Trump’s 2005 tax return came from a rogue element still entrenched in the IRS?  Oh geeeezz, let me see…   All one needs to do is recall the 2012 targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups by the IRS for the purpose of reelecting President Obama.  The thought of someone at the agency doing a similar favor for Obama’s successor doesn’t seem so far-fetched. The tendency to hold on to power is natural.  Machiavelli explained this to us. The link between the IRS and Trump’s leaked tax returns is persuasive.

Furthermore, the history and modus operandi of both Hillary Clinton and Lois Lerner, head of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS and mastermind of the Tea Party targeting scandal, appear very similar similar….  break rules, skirt the law, and then destroy evidence by deleting emails and destroying hard drives and servers. It’s a Democrat thing.  They benefit from the lawbreaking but escape justice by destroying evidence, which is itself a crime. Both used their positions in government not to genuinely and constitutionally serve the legitimate interests of the American people in general, but rather to advance personal and/or political goals. Lerner targeted the Tea Party. And Hillary collected lots of money by making personal deals while as Secretary of State to enrich her presidential campaign.  And then she had officials of the government “provide” her with ammunition (Trump’s tax returns) to beat Donald Trump.  Both “lost” or destroyed the emails that would have proven their crimes.

The New York Times says “someone” sent the documents to a reporter so it has no criminal liability in publishing it. Constitutional law is fairly firm on this point. But as a lawyer, I find that at times it fails to pass the “smell test.” In other words, the policy sometimes stinks!!  How is an ordinary citizen supposed to reconcile this reality:  “If a private citizen receives stolen property, they go to jail.  But if a reporter receives stolen documents, they receive the Pulitzer Prize.”  [Daniel John Sobieski, “Rogue IRS Felons Vindicate Trump.” American Thinker]. To the very end, the Obama administration, through the officials he put in place, used the power of the federal government for strictly political purposes – for the purpose of assassinating the character of a presidential candidate, helping Hillary Clinton win the election, and to further entrench the agenda of the Democratic party in government. The IRS had never ceased serving as the nefarious arm of the political left to target conservatives and lessen their chances in the political arena. And even as a new administration is taking over the federal government, Obama officials still in remaining at the agency are using the same power to obstruct the efforts of a legitimately-elected president of another (an opposing) political party.

Think about this –  Hillary Clinton, as a candidate for president, continued to receive the highest levels of support from the government (including control of the media and access to illegally-disclosed confidential information) even after she had abused that government’s power and prestige and had clearly broken many of the laws put in place to provide transparency to the American people. And, the President of the United States and the Democratic Party (the party having full control and power in government) co-opted all the functions, resources, and instrumentalities of t government, and their influence/pressure as well, in order to help her and to interfere in the campaign of a presidential candidate that threatened their power. It wasn’t the Russians. It was the Obama administration itself.  If this isn’t the definition of government tyranny or the definition of government corruption, I don’t know what is.

It’s about time the American people learned the true extent to which the government had turned on them, had violated their precious liberties, sought to target and silence them, and threatened their voice in government.  This investigation is necessary so that We the People, and conservative watchdog groups, can seek protections to make sure it never happens again.

We exercise the First Amendment so that we don’t have to exercise the Second !!

INTRO — 

We all know how fundamental the rights of conscience, religion, and speech are.  The rights of conscience and religion are the beginnings of thought.  Speech is how we express that thought.

More than that, from a liberty point of view, it is our first amendment right that protects all the others by giving voice and publication when government violates them. It alerts the People to weigh for themselves how much they value their rights and liberties. And then it is the second amendment that ultimately secures all other rights from tyranny in government.

In the IRS scandal, we had the Obama administration using the IRS as a tool of terror, of intimidation to silence the Tea Party –  his party’s political opposition. In theory and practice, it was much like Hitler and his gestapo. Political speech was frozen by government action, first and foremost, and then there were the Tea Party groups and folks who self-censored for fear of having the IRS target them, audit them, and god-forbid come up with some trumped-up charge to make their lives a living hell, fine them, or imprison them.

Why?  Because he was working to win the 2012 election for himself and his party and to win mid-term elections.  In fact, documents released just last week by Judicial Watch confirm that President Obama’s IRS improperly targeted conservatives in order to help him win the 2012 presidential election.

On April 14, 2015, Judicial Watch announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the IRS seeking “any and all records” related to the selection of both individuals and organizations for audits based upon applications filed requesting nonprofit tax status.

Political speech and expression is the most protectable form of speech; it was intended to help We the People flesh out ideas, assess honestly and fully what the government is doing, figure out which candidates are best to govern on our behalf, and to see that government operates as best and as responsibly as possible from our end. Our Founding Fathers appreciated the importance of protected political speech from the lessons taught throughout the colorful history of England. We can never forget that the government is OUR government and not the government of a political party. It operates on us, as individuals, in our lives, our property, our revenue, our liberty, and in our ability to live freely. Political parties are merely political organizations looking for power, not human results.

THE IRS and TAX-EXEMPTION

US federal tax law, specifically Section 501(c)(4) of the IRS code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), exempts certain types of nonprofit organizations from having to pay federal income tax. The statutory language of IRC 501(c)(4) generally requires civic organizations described in that section to be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare“. Treasury regulations interpreting this statutory language apply a more relaxed standard, namely, that the organization “is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements.” As a result, the IRS traditionally has permitted organizations described in IRC 501(c)(4) to engage in lobbying and political campaign activities if those activities are not the organization’s primary activity.

TIMELINE of the IRS SCANDAL —

(1)  On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) is a U.S. constitutional law and corporate law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

All of a sudden, non-profit groups could spend money to engage in political activity and to influence elections. At the time, the Tea Party movement had just taken off, and:

  • Most of the applications to the IRS for tax-exempt 501(c) status were conservative groups, and
  • Most of the money pouring into TV and radio ads to influence elections were from conservative groups to benefit Republican candidates

(2)  Beginning in March 2010, when the Tea Party movement was the rage, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names. IRS staffers began flagging applications from groups with politically themed names like “We the People” and “Take Back the Country.” Staffers also targeted groups whose names included the words “Tea Party,” “patriots,” and “912” (a movement started by Glenn Beck). Those flagged applications were then sent to specialists for a more rigorous review than is typical. (This info, this timeline, came from a draft report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, May 2013).

In May 2010, some employees of the “Determinations Unit” of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the “Be On the Look Out” (“BOLO”) list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to a number of political causes, including names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in Ohio, California, and Washington, DC applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:

  • referenced words such as “Tea Party“, “Patriots”, or “9/12 Project“, “progressive,” “occupy,” “Israel,” “open source software,” “medical marijuana” and “occupied territory advocacy” in the case file;[34][35]
  • outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
  • involved advocating or lobbying to “make America a better place to live”;
  • had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;
  • advocated education about theConstitution and the Bill of Rights;
  • were focused on challenging thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act—known by many as Obamacare;
  • questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, there was an increase of applications for 501(c) tax-exempt status – from 1,500 applications to more than double that amount, 3,400.  The government (controlled by Democrats) took notice.  The IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with “Tea Party”, “patriots”, or “9/12” in their names. While apparently none of these organizations’ applications were denied during this period, only 4 were approved. During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as “progressive”, “progress”, “liberal”, or “equality.  Only 3 groups were targeted had the word “occupy” in their name.

Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS for scrutiny and delay were forced to provide such information as:

  • Names, addresses, and emails of all their members
  • Names, addresses, and emails of everyone who has ever attended any of their meetings
  • The names of the donors, contributors, and grantors. If the donor, contributor, or grantor has run or will run for a public office, identify the office. If not, please confirm by answering this question “No”.
  • The amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.
  • How did the group use these donations, contributions, and grants. Provide Details.
  • A copy of every presentation given by every speaker at their meetings
  • A copy of the flyer or announcement for each meeting
  • Copies of all materials passed out at all meetings
  • Biographies of every speaker at their meetings
  • “Provide the following information for the income you received and raised for the years from inception to the present. Also, provide the same information for the income you expect to receive and raise for 2012, 2013, and 2014.”
  • Copies of any contracts the group is a party to
  • Copies of all training materials the group has used or will use with the Koch Foundation
  • Copies of stories and articles that have been published about the organization and/or any of its members.

Organizations were told that if the information was not provided, they would not be certified as “tax-exempt.”  And even if all the information was provided, the IRS would scrutinize it and further delay the application by following up with probing questions. For example, The Coalition for Life of Iowa, a pro-life group, was asked to “Please explain how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3). Please explain in detail the activities at these prayer meetings. Also, please provide the percentage of time your group spends on prayer groups as compared with other activities of the organization.”

(3)  In June 2011, Lois Lerner, Director of the director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), reportedly became aware of what was going on and directed staffers to change to how they vetted nonprofit applications.

(4)  By the spring of 2012, so many conservative groups had complained about the IRS harassing them that Republicans in Congress took notice. Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) sent the IRS a letter asking why it was targeting Tea partiers, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) held a hearing in which he grilled then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a George W. Bush appointee, over the agency’s treatment of conservative groups. Shulman denied that his agency was targeting conservatives, and the controversy remained quiet until Lerner’s apology (in May; see below).

(5)  In early May 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Michael McKenney, released a preliminary audit report confirming that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify potential political cases, including organizations with Tea Party in their names. The final report would be released on May 14.

(6)  On May 10, in advance of the public release of the audit findings, Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations division of the IRS, Lois Lerner, “apologized” for what she termed were “absolutely inappropriate” actions by the IRS. She would then blame the actions on lower-ranked employees out of a Cincinnati office.

(7)  On May 12, Republican and Democratic lawmakers called for a full investigation of the IRS. At a  press conference the next day, President Obama called the charges “outrageous” if true, and said those responsible should be held accountable.  On May 14, Attorney General Eric Holder ordered the Justice Department to begin an investigation as to whether the conduct amounted to criminal behavior.

(8)  The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found gross violations. His investigation found that of the 296 total conservative non-profit applications reviewed in the audit conduct in December 2012, no work at all was conducted on them for at least 13 months. Of those 296 applications, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant because of frustration and seeming harassment, none had been denied, and 160 were left open – without moving them forward – for more than three years and spanning two election cycles, During that time, the organizations were hit with burdensome questions and numerous requests for more information.

Clearly, the IRS was abusing its power.  Clearly, the Obama administration was abusing its government power to silence political opposition.

(9)  In early May, following the Inspector General’s report, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-OH), began an investigation into the IRS. Additionally, the House Committee on Ways and Means expanded its ongoing 2011 investigation into possible IRS political targeting.

On May 22, 2013, in her opening statement to the Oversight Committee, Lois Lerner stated: “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.” Lerner then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to testify.

House Republicans dismissed Lerner’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment as ineffective, with chairman Issa (R- OH) stating: “You don’t get to use a public hearing to tell the public and press your side of the story and then invoke the Fifth.”  Democrats characterized the contempt proceeding as a “witch hunt” geared toward the 2014 midterm elections.

(10)  In June 2013, the IRS revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. In other words, they were intentionally targeting conservative groups – particularly ones with the name “Tea Party” or “Patriot” or “912” in their name. It admitted that it improperly frustrated and held up their applications. Judicial Watch has recently confirmed (thanks to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act) that the targeting began in 2010.

(11)  In August 2013, Democratic congressman Chris Van Hollen (Md) filed suit against the IRS seeking to overturn a rule that had been on the books since 1959 which allowed social welfare groups to engage in political activity. For 54 years, the IRS has respected that rule and has allowed 501(c)(4) groups to engage in political activity, as long as it wasn’t their primary mission. That rule has been widely interpreted as allowing such tax-exempt groups to spend 49% of their money on politics — without disclosing where that money came from.

It was this 1959 IRS rule that was at the center of Tea Party scandal.

However, more insidiously, the law suit had a lot to do with the greater flexibility granted to groups to engage in political expression with the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision.. This case overturned many previous restrictions on political campaign spending and allowed nearly unlimited and often anonymous spending by corporations and other groups to influence elections. Some Tea Party leaders began forming political action committees as offshoots of their 501(c)-tax-exempt organizations –  501(c)(4) groups – to spend money to influence elections or at least to become politically involved.

So, in 2012, Obama won re-election, although very narrowly.  Tea Party groups were actively speaking out against Obamacare and his bail-out policies, and everything else. And now they have been empowered to continue being active, by the Citizens united decision. Tea Party groups started raising money and pouring money into what is called “anonymous politics” –  not being part of the Republican or Democratic parties. Ordinary citizens, exercising their right of political expression in groups (where there is more power than being exercised at the individual level).

In September 2010, it was reported by The New York Times that almost all of the biggest players among third-party groups, in terms of buying television time in House and Senate races since August of that year, have been 501(c) organizations, and their purchases have heavily favored Republicans….     Remember, the Tea Party movement essentially started in 2009 – 2010.  [CNBC’s Rick Santelli was on the floor of Chicago’s mercantile exchange in Feb. 2009, ranting about the government’s bail-out policy and announced: He urged all capitalists to join him to start a new Tea Party movement].

Between 2010 and 2012, the number of applications the IRS received each year seeking 501(c)(4) certification doubled, many being Tea Party groups and other conservative groups. Democrats became worried. By early 2012, House and Senate Democrats started pressuring the IRS to scrutinize 501(c) non-profit applications and make sure they aren’t seeking the status to engage in political activity.

Van Hollen, who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, by filing the lawsuit sought to force the IRS to draft new rules requiring that the tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups strictly comply with the section of the IRS code that requires such groups to be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.”  Van Hollen and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sought to limit conservative 501(c) non-profit groups from pouring money into political campaigns.

Apparently, Van Hollen didn’t like how Democrats were responding to the emerging scandal which had just broken 2 months earlier and was hoping to emphasize the point that under the Obama administration, the IRS was merely trying to resolve the legal issues surrounding political activities by tax-exempt groups and return to the intention of the IRS code for tax exemption – to further social work.

Jay Sekulow and his American Center for Law & Justice, represented 41 Tea Party groups and sued the IRS over what he called “Political Targeting.” He said that Van Hollen’s agenda raises “serious First Amendment issues.”

Sekulow said: “Political speech is protected by the First Amendment.  Anonymous pamphleteering is as old as our country, and deserves just as much constitutional protection.”  He also said: “If Van Hollen wants to change the code, he should do that through the legislative process” and not try to by-pass the rightful branch, the legislative branch, by going to the improper branch, the judicial branch (or the federal courts).

(12)  On January 15, 2014, the FBI announced that it had found no evidence warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the affair. The FBI stated it found no evidence of “enemy hunting” of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand. The officials indicated, however, that the investigation would continue.

Disturbingly, in February, while the investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) was ongoing, President Obama stated there was “not a smidgeon of corruption” at the IRS.

(13)  On April 9, the House Committee on Ways and Means voted to send a letter to the Department of Justice referring former IRS Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois G. Lerner for criminal prosecution. The Committee’s nearly three-year investigation uncovered evidence of willful misconduct on the part of Ms. Lerner.   In particular, the Committee found that Ms. Lerner used her position to improperly influence IRS action against conservative organizations, denying these groups due process and equal protection rights under the law.  The Committee also found she impeded official investigations by providing misleading statements in response to questions from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.  Finally, Lerner risked exposing, and it was actually alleged (even in a lawsuit) that she did expose, confidential taxpayer information, in apparent violation of IRS section 6103 by using her personal email to conduct official business.

(14)  Two months later, on June 13, the IRS notified Republican congressional investigators that it had lost Lerner’s emails from January 2009 to April 2011 because of a mid-2011 computer crash.  The emails were under subpoena as part of the congressional investigation. June 19, the IRS said that the damaged hard drive containing Lerner’s missing emails had been disposed of more than two years prior.

On July 9, 2014, Republicans released an April 13, 2013 email from Lerner in which she cautioned colleagues to “be cautious about what we say in emails.”

(15)  On September 5, the IRS said it lost additional emails of five workers under congressional investigation, blaming computer crashes. These five workers include two people based in Cincinnati who worked on Tea Party cases.  According to the IRS, the crashes all predate congressional investigations and had occurred between September 2009 and February 2014.

(16)  On September 5, 2014, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released its report on the scandal, finding that inappropriate screening criteria were definitely used but concluded that there was no intentional wrongdoing or political bias in the use of the criteria.  A few months later, in December, Chairman Issa released a new report that found that “the IRS’s inability to keep politics out of objective decisions about interpretation of the tax code damaged its primary function: an apolitical tax collector that Americans can trust to treat them fairly.”

(17)  In January 2015, the US Senate requested that the White House produce all communications it has had with the IRS since 2010.

(18)  On August 5, 2015, the Senate Finance Committee released a report that concluded that management at the IRS had been “delinquent in its responsibility to provide effective control, guidance, and direction over the processing of applications for tax-exempt status filed by Tea Party and other political advocacy organizations” and that it was only guilty of poor planning and oversight.

(19)  In October 2015, the Justice Department notified Congress that there would be no charges against the former IRS official Lois Lerner or against anyone else in the IRS. The investigation found no evidence of illegal activity or the partisan targeting of political groups and found that no IRS official attempted to obstruct justice. The DOJ investigation did find evidence of mismanagement and Lerner’s poor judgement in using her IRS account for personal messages but said “poor management is not a crime.”

(20)  Four days after the Justice Department closed its investigation, 19 members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee led by the Committee’s Chairman, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), filed a resolution to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Those sponsoring the impeachment resolution to remove Koskinen from office accused him of failing to prevent the destruction of evidence in allowing the erasure of back-up tapes containing thousands of e-mails written by Lois Lerner, and of making false statements under oath to Congress. In a statement released by the Committee, Chaffetz said Koskinen “failed to comply with a congressionally issued subpoena, documents were destroyed on his watch, and the public was consistently misled. Impeachment is the appropriate tool to restore public confidence in the IRS and to protect the institutional interests of Congress.”

(21)  Last month, as part of an ongoing investigation into the IRS scandal and an ongoing inquiry by Judicial Watch, the government released names of 426 organizations which had been improperly targeted by the IRS because of their politics. Another 40 were not released as part of the list because they had already opted out of being part of the class-action suit. That total is much higher than the 298 groups the IRS‘ Inspector General identified back in May 2013, when investigators first revealed the agency had been subjecting applications to long and potentially illegal delays, and forcing them to answer intrusive questions about their activities.

(22)  Courts have already ruled against the IRS.  For example, in 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did so and noted in its ruling: “501(c)(4) groups may not collect tax-deductible donations, but they may engage in relatively unfettered political advocacy, including election advocacy. 501(c)(4) groups range from national organizations—including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and the Sierra Club—to local neighborhood associations.”

(23)  There has been a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch and its investigation into the scandal continues. It has just received almost 700 pages of documents (61% redacted) under the Freedom of Information Act which proves the scheme by the Obama administration to target Tea Party groups into silence and inactivity in political elections. Its current lawsuit is seeking at least 7000 pages of documents related to the IRS scandal that have been hidden from Congress and the American people. The IRS, under the Obama administration, intentionally sought to restrict Tea Party activity and especially in political elections.

Responding to the lawsuit, Thomas Kane, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for the IRS, wrote in a sworn declaration that Lerner’s Blackberry was “removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012.”   In a USA Today opinion column, James S. Robbins wrote, “For a scandal that is frequently derided as ‘fake,’ it is amazing how often real evidence disappears. The disappearing act is so frequent, it is reasonable to wonder whether it is really a systematic attempt to destroy evidence of abuse of power.”

(24)  The current US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has been asked by Congressional Republicans to re-evaluate the evidence against the IRS and against Lois Lerner and re-open the investigation.  At present, Sessions seems noncommittal on the matter.  Taxpayers deserve to know that the DOJ’s previous evaluation was not tainted by politics. 

TARGETING POLICIAL OPPOSITION IS TYRANNY –

The IRS scandal was egregious and conservatives should be enraged. I would say all Americans should be enraged but judging from the conduct of Democrats, they seem to be fine with anything that shuts up a conservative – even if it means denying their basic constitutional rights.  But an assault on the rights of one group in the end will be an assault on everyone’s rights down the road. Looking the other way while the government violates the rights of certain citizens is a dangerous thing. Allowing the government to get away with it is worse.  Allowing the government to silence political opposition is to put our free society at risk.

As President Harry Truman once warned: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”  [In a Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]

References:

Audit Report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review.”  Referenced at:  https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.html

Diane Rufino, “How Quickly Trump’s Tax Return Story Has Disappeared,”  Forloveofgodandcountry blog, April 23, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2017/04/23/how-quickly-the-trump-tax-return-story-has-disappeared/

IRS Targeting Controversy, Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

“The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Another Court Ruling Confirms IRS Illegally Targeted Tea Party and Conservative Groups,” CEI.org, November 21, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://cei.org/blog/another-court-ruling-confirms-irs-illegally-targeted-tea-party-and-conservative-groups

Andy Kroll, “The IRS Tea Party Scandal Explained,” Mother Jones, November 21, 2013.  Referenced:  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-party-scandal-congress-nonprofit-obama

Stephen Dinan and Seth McLaughlin, “House Republicans Derail Impeachment Effort Against IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, IRS Commissioner,” The Washington Times, December 6, 2016.  Referenced at:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/6/john-koskinen-irs-commissioner-spared-impeachment-/

David Barstow, Russ Bruettner, Susanne Craig, and Megan Twohey, “Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades,” The New York Times, November 2, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

Adam Liptak, “Is It Illegal to Publish a President’s Tax Returns,” The New York Times, March 15, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-tax-returns-legal-precedent.html

Daniel John Sobieski, “Rogue IRS Felons Vindicate Trump,” American Thinker, March 16, 2917.  Referenced at:  http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/rogue_irs_felons_vindicate_trump.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Quickly the Trump Tax Return Story Has Disappeared

Trump - where are your tax returns

by Diane Rufino, April 23, 2017

During the September 26, 2016 presidential debate, candidate Hillary Clinton hinted that her opponent, Donald Trump, was hiding something by not releasing his taxes. Who can forget her attack: “You’ve gotta ask yourself, why won’t he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be. Third, we don’t know all of his business dealings, but we have been told, through investigative reporting that, he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes. Because the only years that anybody has ever seen, were a couple of years where he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license. And they showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax.”  Most of us shook our heads at the audacity of the likes of Hillary Clinton, a serial liar, cheat, intimidation expert, and lawbreaker, and known roundly for her lack of ethics, morals, and decency (particularly in a so-called charitable organization, the Clinton Foundation, which turned out to be a sham or front for her own campaign financing)

When Trump’s 2005 tax returns were inappropriately leaked (the smear campaign against Donald Trump already in full swing), Rachel Maddow, and MSNBC, couldn’t wait to treat their rabid progressive audience to what they were sure was evidence of a tax-evader. And so, on air, Maddow, filled with the kind of exuberance that only liberals and progressives are capable of – in anticipation of destroying the reputation of a hardworking, patriotic, conservative family man, exposed Trump’s tax results.

The only thing….  Trump’s tax returns weren’t at all what she, or the left, were expecting. Not only did Trump not escape paying taxes, but he paid a higher rate than the likes of Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama. The Obamas paid an effective tax rate of only 18.7% in 2015. Bernie Sanders paid a federal tax rate of only 13.5% in 2014. Ironically, Comcast, the parent of MSNBC, paid a tax rate of only 24% from 2008 through 2012, less than Trump’s 2005 effective rate of roughly 25.3%. Trump paid $38 million in taxes on an income of $150 million.

Back in 1995, Trump had serious financial issues. We know this because of another “inappropriate” leak of Trump’s tax returns. In fact, by the early 1990’s, Trump was hemorrhaging money and was on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. He was heading toward personal bankruptcy as a result of a series of misguided investments and mismanagement of his company in the late 1980’s which ended up forcing him to borrow money from his family. Trump suffered a staggering loss of $916 million in 1995 – enough to allow him to take advantage of a tax law which would permit him to avoid paying income taxes for 18 years.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton and her campaign strategists took a gamble on this information, using it to make the bold accusation that Trump wasn’t releasing his tax returns because he wasn’t in fact, paying taxes. This, of course, begs the follow-up: She must have been given this information in advance; someone must have leaked information to her and the campaign prior to its release through the news that Trump suffered such devastating losses that surely he was exempt from paying federal income tax. Was that Hillary’s “October surprise”?

Trump’s tax information was leaked to the New York Times; it was received by an “anonymous” package in the mail. It then made it to Maddow and to all other news outlets. Those who gleefully exposed it, hoping it would embarrass and harm Trump’s legitimacy for the presidency, suffered ridicule and embarrassment themselves. We enjoyed watching them with egg on their faces.

TRUMP - tax returns (Rachel Maddow meme - fake news)

Indeed, Trump’s near-billion-dollar loss in 1995 might have been the single biggest net operating loss in the country that year, amounting to almost 2 percent of the total “net operating losses” reported by all American taxpayers who used the same tax provision as Trump.

Sure, Donald Trump did not pay federal income tax in 1995, and perhaps even a few years after that. But as the leaked 2005 tax return shows, he chose NOT to take advantage of a tax law that Congress itself put into the IRS code to enjoy relief from taxes for nearly two decades.

That speaks to the man that is Donald Trump.

Trump may not be as good a businessman as he claims nor as rich, but he is clearly an honest-enough taxpayer and loyal American who believes that if he has made money in this country, he is obligated to pay taxes and not shift the burden to the middle class to pay the taxes he should. He doesn’t have the intuition of a Hillary Clinton to break and skirt the law, nor the audacity of a Bernie Sanders, who paid minimal while being quite rich.

This story goes to show one thing —  Liberals and Democrats are so happy to go after conservatives and Republicans for character assassination. All too often, as in this case, we find the charges to be baseless or trumped up (couldn’t resist!) and in the end, we find that, by comparison, liberals and Democrats are guilty of far worse and have gotten away with it.

Maybe the American people will begin to take accusations by the left a little less seriously, maybe they will begin to note the glaring hypocrisy, and maybe – just maybe – they will give President Donald Trump a chance to help the American people, as a whole, and to Make America Great Again !!

References:
Daniel John Sobieski, “Rogue IRS Felons Vindicate Trump,” American Thinker, March 16, 2917.  Referenced at:  http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/rogue_irs_felons_vindicate_trump.html
Abigail Tracy, “Trump’s Financial Troubles in the Early 1990’s Were Even Worse Than Anyone Thought,” Vanity Fair, October 4, 2016.  Referenced at:  http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-financial-troubles-taxes-1990s

David Barstow, Russ Bruettner, Susanne Craig, and Megan Twohey, “Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades,” The New York Times, November 2, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

Adam Liptak, “Is It Illegal to Publish a President’s Tax Returns,” The New York Times, March 15, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-tax-returns-legal-precedent.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Give Trump a Chance

- at school (Feb. 28, 2017)

by Diane Rufino, March 18, 2017

 

I’m tired of the insane talking points and reactions to everything President Trump is doing. I’m tired of the messages and texts from people who accuse me of being some horrible person for supporting the election of Trump and his policies of tax reform, healthcare reform, trade deal reform, job creation, immigration enforcement and increased homeland security. Everyone who voted for Trump saw the necessity for these policies. And guess what, most of America (through the electoral system) agreed with him and rejected the decaying policies of the Democratic party and it spokesperson, the deeply-flawed Hillary Clinton. It indeed was a revolution of sorts, accomplished by a momentous turn-out at the ballot box and a major shift in ideology by a good chunk of the American people. Government wasn’t working for them.

 

The dishonest news better get on board and start paying allegiance to the ones it was granted first amendment protection in the first place – the American people….. not a political party and not the federal government. They need to start reporting objectively and accurately and start recognizing the legitimate concerns of the people and not the goals of the Democratic Party or the progressive movement. Otherwise, let them organize as a PAC. Progressive judges need to read the Constitution, understand it, and stop trying to be a branch of government that they are not. People need to show respect for the results of 2016 election because that was the voice of their fellow citizens. The election was extremely significant in what it stood for. All anyone needs to do is to take a look at a breakdown of the election county-by-county across the 50 states. Again, it was a grassroots revolution…. a unified message that government is corrupt, bloated, antagonistic to the interests of business and taxpayers alike, unfit to protect the American people and manage who comes across our borders, and incapable of putting the interests of American citizens before the interests of other groups.

 

Give President Trump a chance. Sit back and enjoy the increase in jobs. People who have jobs can support themselves and their families and can live productive lives with dignity and self-respect. Sit back and enjoy the lower taxes you’ll have to pay (if you are, in fact, one of the ones who pay). Sit back and watch how greater homeland security will make you feel safer. Sit back and watch how a common-sense immigration policy will reduce the burden on our social services, provide jobs for citizens, and reduce the violence in our communities. Sit back and enjoy the lower healthcare insurance premiums that you will have to pay. Sit back and enjoy decreased federal regulations that used to strangle small businesses, burden agriculture, increase costs of energy, lower the efficiency of public education, and lessen the personal use and enjoyment of our real property. Give him a chance. Maybe you’ll see that, in fact, the good and decent people of the United States got it right and that the people’s revolution was a good thing after all.

 

Let’s not forget the words of President John F. Kennedy: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

 

 

TRUMP - thumbs up

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Our Founding Generation Would Have Said About Obamacare

tea-party-you-mean-we-can-tax-them-for-not-buying-tea   by Diane Rufino, February 25, 2017

Although we are on the verge of having President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka, “Obamacare”) repealed and replaced, I am writing this piece to remind folks of the loss of freedom we suffered at the hands of President Obama and his administration with the unconstitutional and universal healthcare scheme he misrepresented and then forced on the American people.

The assault on the precious liberties of the American people were realized by only a handful (and certainly not the liberal members of the Supreme Court) and to half of these, it didn’t matter. When I talk about those who could care less, I am referring to the Republican members of Congress, who for years seemed unable to craft legislation or summon a vote.

Certainly, the caliber of an “American” has changed. We should all shutter for the future of our republic and for the security of the liberties our forefathers fought a revolution for. The debacle known as Obamacare has shown that they are never secure in the face of a hostile president who uses a “phone and a pen” and secret meetings to pressure legislation that that are violative of them.

Yes, it would be wonderful for everyone to have healthcare insurance to help them with their healthcare costs. It would be great if insurance didn’t make it cost prohibitive for those with pre-existing conditions. It would be great if times were like they were many years ago when everyone went to school, took their education seriously, got a job, and took care of themselves and their families. But jobs are scarce and people willing to invest in themselves and look for a job are even scarcer. It would be great if people took stock of their health and avoided tobacco, drugs, and fattening foods so that they are not obese and prone to diabetes and heart disease and therefore put an enormous strain on our healthcare system, but they don’t.

Yes, there are poor people out there. Some are poor because of a legitimate situation but most are poor because of a mindset and lifestyle choice. Some complain about being poor but don’t want a job; they merely want to be made more comfortable in poverty, which the Democratic Party is all-too-happy to do. Dependents make the most loyal voters. Why would anyone want to set an alarm to get up early every morning, worry about shuffling their kids to daycare, deal with traffic on the roads, put up with bullshit at work, put up with a horrible boss, have to show up even when they don’t feel well, strive to earn a decent performance evaluation just to hopefully be able to take home the same amount of money the following year, stress out about whether he or she has job security, balance work with other parenting obligations (such as when children get sick), and deal with limited days off when they could stay home, sleep late, get a welfare check from the government, have their apartments paid for, heating and air-conditioning paid for, food paid for, daycare covered (even though they aren’t working), a free cell phone, and free healthcare. Why do they need to work? Why would they even want to work?

American used to produce things. Americans used to be productive citizens. They were ambitious, resourceful, proud. Our government programs are creating the human waste and decay that is beginning to define America and destroy our cities, our schools, and our ability to live contently amongst each other. How can one group of Americans, who work hard, raise their families responsibly, pay their taxes and then find out that those exceedingly high taxes are going to pay for others and their families, have any respect for the latter? They don’t. They don’t look at them as equals.

But there is a constitutional way to solve problems and there is an unconstitutional way to solve them. And that’s why it is so important to vet presidential candidates for their constitutional character and not make choices based on skin color or social justice.

And so, a lesson taught so well that it inspired a revolution has been lost on today’s generation of Americans. And that lesson was to never yield individual liberties to the designs of government, even if those designs are well-intentioned. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficient… The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

The lesson of the Boston Tea Party, an act of civil disobedience and protest that inspired today’s Sons of Liberty movement (the Tea Party), is an important and timeless lesson.

On the night of December 16,1773, members of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Indians, boarded three ships in the Boston harbor, and tossed 342 chests of tea overboard. They did this to protest the Tea Act. The Tea Act was actually not so bad in its provisions – it provided a high-quality tea, at lower costs than the colonists had been used to, and at a lower tax than what they had been previously used to. So why were the colonists so upset?

The Tea Act of 1773 was a follow-up to the Revenue Act, which was one of the laws in the hugely unpopular Townshend Acts. The Townshend Acts set new import duties (taxes) on British goods including paint, paper, lead, glass and tea. Due to protests from British merchants, whose trade was seriously effected by the American colonists refusing to buy the goods, Parliament ultimately repealed all of the duties (taxes) – except the tax on tea.

The principal objective of the Tea Act was to reduce the massive amount of tea held by the financially-troubled British East India Company in its London warehouses and to help the struggling company survive and to do so, it created a monopoly on the sale of tea to the colonies to the East India Company. It allowed the East India company to sell its large tea surplus below the prices charged by colonial competitors and thus under-cut and threatened local tea merchants. It was able to sell its tea at lower prices because the Act granted the Company the right to ship its tea directly to North America from its China warehouses (without first stopping at Britain to pay export duties). However, as mentioned earlier, the tea imposed on the colonies was still subject to the tea tax under the Revenue Act.

Specifically, the Tea Act provided:

1. Tea could be shipped in East India Company ships directly from China to the American colonies, thus avoiding the tax on goods first due England, as required by previous legislation.

2. A duty (tax) of 3 pence per pound was to be collected on tea delivered to America. [The previous duty (tax) was 12 pence (1 shilling) per pound, which was paid on tax which had been sent from Britain, so colonists would be paying LESS in tea tax with this Act. Also, interestingly, they would be getting their tea cheaper than the people of Britain !!].

3. The tea would be marketed and forced on colonists by special consignees (receivers of shipments) who would be selected by the East India Tea Company.

The new import tax of 3 pence was considerably less than the previous tea tax on the colonists, in which 12 pence (1 shilling) per pound on tea sent via Britain, so colonists would be paying LESS in tea tax with the Tea Act of 1773. Also, interestingly, they would be getting their tea cheaper than the people of Britain !! Even King George III was reported to comment that “the colonists will finally be happy!” and will stop protesting.

The Act also encouraged British agents to seek out local merchants of tea who were smuggling in tea (in violation of the new law) and shut down their operations. In effect, they were making sure the monopoly on tea was complete and that colonists were buying only the tea that the British Parliament were forcing on them.

While the average contemporary American might look at the bottom dollar and assess the law based on their pocketbook and conclude that the Tea Act was good and fair, our founding generation looked at the insidious violations to their fundamental liberties embedded in this seemingly harmless law.

First of all, the Tea Act forced the colonists to purchase Company tea on which the Townshend duties were paid, thus implicitly asserting Parliament’s right of taxation. Even though the costs and the taxes were lowered, they would not back down on their demand that there be “No Taxation Without Representation!” This basic English right was secured in the Magna Carta of 1215 and re-asserted over and over again up until the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which essentially transferred government power from the King to the peoples’ house – Parliament. And second, the Tea Act compelled the colonists to buy a product identified by a legislative body far away. It took away their right to enjoy competition and to pursue livelihoods.

If men like Sam Adams, John Hancock, James Otis Jr., Paul Revere were alive today, they would have called out Obamacare for violations similar to those in the Tea Act. They wouldn’t be complaining about the increased premiums or the frustration in signing up for healthcare… they would be sounding the alarm to government compulsion and unconstitutional taxation.

Let’s hope that when Obamacare is repealed it will be replaced by a scheme that divests the federal government of compulsion power over the American people and returns power to the free market system. And let’s help educate our lesser-informed members of society that those who are all too happy to receive hand-outs from the government are the most insidious threats to the very liberty upon which our country was founded. “A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety,” wrote John Stuart Mill, “is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

TITAN v. TITAN: President Trump and the Federal Courts Face Off Over Temporary Travel Ban

trump-v-supreme-court-2

by Diane Rufino, February 6, 2017

On January 27, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” which provides a 90-day suspension of entry into the United States for individuals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen on account of their status as posing a heightened risk of terrorism. It was the US Congress, under President Barack Obama, which had assigned this status to those seven countries.

The Executive Order was issued after the President determined that “deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States,” and that our Nation accordingly must take additional steps “to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.” [see the text of the Executive Order]. Invoking his constitutional authority to control the entry of aliens into this country and congressionally-delegated authority to “suspend the entry of any class of aliens” whose entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” the President, by issuing the Executive Order, has directed a temporary 90-day suspension of entry for individuals from seven countries previously identified as posing a heightened risk of terrorism by Congress or the Executive Branch; a temporary 120-day suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program; and a suspension of entry of Syrian nationals as refugees until the President determines that measures are in place “to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.” Exec. Order §§ 3(c), (5)(a), (c).

Democrats and opposition groups have nicknamed the Executive Order “the Muslim travel ban.”

Two days ago, on February 4, a federal district judge in Seattle issued a ruling – a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO), aka, an injunction – that temporarily blocks the Executive Order. The court order prevents the president’s Executive Order from going into effect and allows the immigration to move forward.

The State Department has agreed to abide by the ruling until it files an appeal. In the meantime, the judge’s decision allows tens of thousands of aliens from terrorist nations visas to travel to our country. The ruling came after Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of the Executive Order’s key provisions. The TRO was issued by Seattle US District Judge James Robart pending a full review of Washington states’ complaint. In response to the decision, WA Attorney General Ferguson commented: “The Constitution prevailed today. No one is above the law—not even the president.”

Minnesota joined the suit with Washington and since the TRO was issued, seven other states have decided to join and challenge the “travel ban.” They want it overturned. These seven states include Washington, Virginia, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, Michigan, and California.

One day, earlier, however, another district court (Massachusetts) concluded in a thorough, well-reasoned opinion, the Executive Order is a lawful exercise of the political branches’ plenary control over the admission of aliens into the United States. Louhghalam v. Trump, Civ. No. 17-10154-NMG, Order 11 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2017)

This article will explain why the Executive Order and the temporary travel ban is legal and appropriate and why I think it will ultimately be upheld.

First, immigration is the sole responsibility of Congress (not of the States). The States expressly delegated such power to the federal Congress in Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States……  To establish a uniform rule of naturalization….”  (The Supremacy Clause ensures that the States respect the federal government as the sovereign on this issue). Under this authority, Congress passed the Immigration and Naturality Act of 1952 (codified at 8 USC Chapter 12) which lays out federal immigration law.  § 1182 of this Act concerns inadmissible aliens; it delegation to the President of the United States the power to suspend entry “for all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants” or to “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Second, the travel ban is a proper exercise of the President’s power to issue Executive Orders to force the government to enforce laws already on the books (such as the one discussed above), his war power as Commander-in-Chief (we are currently engaged in a War on Terror, as admitted so by our very own Congress and presidents), his Foreign Policy powers, and his National Security Powers.

I. The Executive Order and What It Says (and Doesn’t Say) –

The Executive Order, available on the White House website, reads:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.

(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e ) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment. [The full text is provided in the Appendix below]

Section 217(a)(12) of INA, 8 USC 1187(a)(12), which is the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (and extended in 2016) and which is highlighted and italicized above in the text of the Executive Order, identifies seven countries which are excluded from the waiver program. These seven countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. These countries were identified under the Act, by the Obama administration, because they present a heightened risk of terrorism and they cannot and do not provide proper information on its nationals so that the United States can vet those coming into our country. A different section of the Order refers to Syria specifically, because it calls for the indefinite suspension of Syrian refugee admissions, until such time as the President believes security concerns have been adequately addressed. The President’s Executive Order does not seek to make new law. Rather, it clarifies existing law and aligns it with national security concerns. The Executive Order addresses the basic requirement for an alien to enter and reside in the United States – a verifiable visa.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §1101 et seq., an alien may not enter and permanently reside in the United States without a visa. See §1181(a). President Trump is using the visa requirement to introduce proper vetting measures as it relates to those coming in from countries previously identified as engaging in terrorism and being unable to provide adequate visas. Without proper visas, the government (and the innocent citizens of the United States) do not know what type of citizens they are getting and furthermore, will be unable to keep tabs on them. According the INA, visas must ensure that the individual seeking to move to the US is not inadmissible for a number of reasons, including that they innocent of terrorist activities. The seven countries covered by the Executive Order cannot ensure that its citizens meet our threshold. Hence, the president has issued a temporary ban for 90 days in order that proper assurances can be provided.

So, to be clear about the President’s Executive Order: It bars Syrian refugees indefinitely and blocks citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entry into the US for 90 days. The provisions of the Executive Order will force the State Department and Homeland Security to establish proper vetting procedures by the 90-day period (the temporary ban) for those countries so that authorities can keep the United States safe. The exact process by which the president seeks to establish proper vetting procedures is explained clearly in the Order.

Here is some background information on the Immigration and Nationality Act, to which the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevent Act has been recently added:

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, prohibits admission into the United States of a foreign national not in possession of a valid visa, with a few limited exceptions. One such exception is the Visa Waiver Program (VWP or Program) which, for a number of years, was a pilot program (VWPP). That pilot program, which was first enacted in 1986, was designed to allow nationals from certain countries to enter the United States under limited conditions, for a short period of time, without first obtaining a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad. On October 30, 2000, President Clinton signed the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, making the program permanent. See Section 217. The VWP, administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the State Department, utilizes a risk-based, multi-layered approach to detect and prevent terrorists, serious criminals, and other mala fide actors from traveling to the United States. This approach incorporates regular, national-level risk assessments concerning the impact of each program country’s participation in the VWP on U.S. national security and law enforcement interests. It also includes comprehensive vetting of individual VWP travelers prior to their departure for the United States, upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry, and during any subsequent air travel within the United States, among other things.

The VWP authorizes the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to waive the requirement of a valid nonimmigrant visa for visitors for business (B-1) or pleasure (B-2) who are seeking to enter the United States from certain countries for not more than 90 days. In 2003, 13.5 million visitors entered the United States under this Program, constituting almost one-half of all visitors that year. The main advocates of the VWPP were the Department of State (DOS), the American tourist industry, and the business community. DOS advanced a two-fold incentive for the program: (1) eliminating the requirement for nationals of high volume application, low denial rate countries to apply for nonimmigrant visitor and business visas at the consulates, thus also eliminating processing paperwork and freeing consular resources for other activities; and (2) fostering better relations with reciprocity countries that allow U.S. citizens to also enter without a visa. The U.S. tourist industry was enthusiastic in its support of the program, as it correctly envisioned that millions of tourists would take advantage of the opportunity to travel to the United States on the spur of the moment without the time-consuming inconvenience of having to obtain nonimmigrant visas in advance of travel. The business community also welcomed the idea that people could enter the United States on short notice to conduct business without first applying for a nonimmigrant visa.6 For the most part, while the VWPP had been enthusiastically received, the Program was also the subject of a critical report issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General. Testifying before a House subcommittee on May 5, 1999, the Inspector General noted that the Pilot Program could facilitate illegal entry because visitors from VWPP designated countries avoid the pre-screening that consular officers normally perform on visa applicants. It was also pointed out that some terrorists and criminals intercepted at the time of inspection were attempting to enter under the VWPP. Another problem, according to the Inspector General, was government employee corruption involving bribery and trafficking in fraudulent or blank passports and other documents.

At press time, 27 countries are designated participants They include Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, 18 San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. A small number of countries that were once designated VWP countries have been disqualified from the VWP. Belgium is currently in provisional status because of concerns about the integrity of its nonmachine-readable passports and issues associated with the reporting of lost or stolen passports. Qualifying countries are designated by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, based upon that country’s satisfaction of a number of requirements, including not issuing passports to persons who pose a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the United States, having a low non-immigrant visa refusal rate for the two years prior to designation, and the status of the country as one that issues its citizens machine-readable passports (“MRP”) that satisfy the internationally accepted standard for machine readability.

Section 217(a)(12) provides that a visa will not be waived “from Iraq, Syria, or other country or area of concern.” Specifically, the section states that a visa will not be waived for any “alien who has been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011, in Iraq or Syria, or any country designated by the Secretary of State or Secretary of Homeland Security [under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 2405) (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), or any other provision of law], as a country whose government has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism or has provided support of acts of international terrorism.” [https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-4391.html ]

II.  Constitutional Authority –

As mentioned earlier, immigration is a responsibility delegated to the federal government by the States. It was an express delegation for an express purpose – to “provide for the common defense.”  Together with the authority “to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; and to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States (Article I, Section 8), Congress was vested with the authority “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” (also Article I, Section 8).  All of these objects, as explained in the first line of Section, comprise the federal government’s primary purpose – “to provide for the Common Defense.”

So, Article I of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to make all “necessary and proper” rules to legislate and define our nation’s immigration policy.  Because this authority was delegated from the States to the federal government, the federal government is sovereign on this topic; that is, its authority is supreme. The States of Washington and Minnesota may think it has the power to interfere with the government’s rightful role – to somehow claim that its interests supersede the federal government’s decision with respect to the nation as a whole, but it is the government which is given deference.

Article II of the US Constitution provides the president with his powers. Article II, Section 1 gives the President the authority to enforce the laws passed by Congress. The president, therefore, is tasked to make sure our immigration laws are enforced.  Article II, Section 2 gives the president additional powers over immigration – under his war powers.

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution reads: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices….”  When the Congress voted almost unanimously to authorize military force to fight the war on terror (AMU of September 14, 2001), it was taken as a declaration of war. As soon as our country engaged in military action, and especially with a declaration of war, the president holds the title of Commander-in-chief and has, on top of his executive powers, vast war powers.

The President also has Foreign Policy powers and National Security powers. (The State Department and Homeland Security Departments are executive cabinet offices under his control).

III.  Statutory Authority –

The Immigration and Naturality Act of 1952, codified under Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. Chapter 12), also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, restricts immigration into the United States. It expressly authorizes the president to suspend entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, or place any restrictions on their entry as he deems necessary or appropriate, whenever he finds that such aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the country. There isn’t even a requirement that the country be at war or involved in any particular conflict.  Congress knowingly, expressly, granted the President of the United States with plenary power to suspend or restrict aliens, or any class of aliens, into the country.

The Immigration and Naturality Act of 1952 was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, both House and Senate, and was signed by a Democrat president, Harry S. Truman.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 reads:

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible Aliens

(10) Miscellaneous

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

The provision gives presidents broad authority to ban individual immigrants or groups of immigrants. Presidents haven’t hesitated to use it.  In modern times, Barack Obama invoked it 19 times, Bill Clinton 12 times, George W. Bush six times and Ronald Reagan five times. George H.W. Bush invoked it once.

Indeed, throughout our history, there have been a number of instances in which the United States has curtailed or suspended the immigration of people from certain regions or nations, both during times of war and times of peace. In several circumstances, these laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court, confirming the power of the Federal Government to regulate immigration based on the national interest. The text of the Immigration and Nationality Act is clear – the President has broad discretion to keep certain people out of the United States.

Not long after the American colonies fought the British for their independence and then established the new union (“a more perfect union”; created by the adoption of the US Constitution), the French had their own revolution. (1789-1799). The Federalists, led by Washington and then John Adams, detested the French Revolution of 1789 (1789-1799) because it led to mob rule and confiscation of property. The Republicans, which represented a new party started by Thomas Jefferson to oppose the Federalists, supported the French Revolution for its democratic ideals.

The French and English were longtime enemies. So, when President Washington developed favorable relations with Great Britain (by negotiating a treaty to settle outstanding differences between it and the States), the French revolutionary leaders became angered. In the election of 1796, Federalist John Adams won the most electoral votes to become president. Republican Thomas Jefferson came in second, which made him vice-president. (The 12th Amendment later changed this election method, requiring separate electoral ballots for president and vice-president).  Shortly after becoming president, Adams sent diplomats to France to smooth over the bad feelings. But three French representatives – dubbed X, Y, and Z – met secretly with U.S. diplomats and demanded $10 million in bribes to the French government to begin negotiations. When the Americans refused, Mr. X threatened the United States with the “power and violence of France.”  News of the “XYZ Affair” enraged most Americans. Many Federalists immediately called for war against France while Republicans spoke out against the “war fever.”

Neither the United States nor France ever declared war. But the Federalists increasingly accused Jefferson and the Republicans of being a traitorous “French Party.” Rumors of a French invasion and enemy spies frightened many Americans. President Adams warned that foreign influence within the United States was dangerous and must be “exterminated.”

Amidst this climate, in 1798, President Adams signed the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts into law to help him deal with repercussions of the French Revolution and also the Quasi-War with France. The Acts, readily adopted by a Federalist-dominated Congress, were intended to make the United States more secure from alien (foreign) spies and domestic traitors. The acts allowed the president to imprison or deport aliens considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States” at any time and any male citizen of a hostile nation during times of war. The two most notable of these acts were the Alien Enemies Act and the Alien Friends Act.

The Alien Enemies Act provided that once war had been declared, all male citizens of an enemy nation could be arrested, detained, and deported. If war had broken out, this act could have expelled many of the estimated 25,000 French citizens then living in the United States. But the country did not go to war, and the law was never used. It was later used, however, to justify FDR’s rounding up of Japanese-American citizens during World War II.

The Alien Friends Act authorized the president to deport any non-citizen suspected of plotting against the government during either wartime or peacetime. This law could have resulted in the mass expulsion of new immigrants. The act was limited to two years, but no alien was ever deported under it.

In 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Law, which prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers. The Chinese Exclusion Act was a vital test for the power of the federal government to restrict immigration. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1889 case of Chae Chan Ping v. United States. In the opinion of the court, Justice Stephen Johnson Field wrote, “The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the executive or legislative departments.”  (The act was repealed by Congress in 1943).

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.” In 1906, in his State of the Union address to Congress, he said he needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The following year, Congress passed and Roosevelt signed into law the Immigration Act of 1907, which read (Section 2):

“The following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States: “All idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane within five years previous; persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; paupers; persons likely to become a public charge; professional beggars; persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; ….  “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy……”

The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.  It is interesting to note the phrase “polygamists or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.” (The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists). Muslims at that time were furious over the Immigration Act of 1907 specifically because of this phrase because, as they pointed out, that phrase would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States. Muslims believe in polygamy. They may not actively practice it, but every faithful Muslim believes in the practice; the religion allows it.

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Rather, he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization.”  He once wrote that, “The civilizations of Europe, America and Australia exist today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization,” praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the “Moslem conquerors.”

In 1917, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1917 (aka, the Literacy Act or the Asiatic Barred Zone Act). In addition to barring “homosexuals”, “idiots”, “feeble-minded persons”, “criminals”, “epileptics”, “insane persons”, alcoholics, “professional beggars”, all persons “mentally or physically defective,” polygamists, anarchists, and people over the age of 16 who were illiterate, this act barred immigration from Southeast Asia, India, and the Middle East.

Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527 were signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Citing the Alien and Sedition Acts as precedence, these proclamations restricted the entry and naturalization of Japanese, Germans, and Italians respectively. Later, FDR would bar entry into the US of the Jews who were seeking asylum from the genocidal Nazi regime.

During the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, President Jimmy Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. In particular, he issued a pair of orders:  One was an order for Iranian students to report to immigration offices in order to determine if they had violated the terms of their visa; if they had, they would be deported. The second was an order to end all future visas for Iranians and to stop issuing most new visas.  Carter ordered administration officials to “invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”

On December 12, 1979, a federal judge, Joyce Hens Green, initially ruled the order unconstitutional, but her ruling was reversed on appeal.  On Sept. 22, 1980, the Times, citing an Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman, reported that by that date, nearly 60,000 students had registered as required, about 430 had been deported and 5,000 had left voluntarily.

In October 1985, President Ronald Reagan temporarily barred entry to officers or employees of the Cuban government or the Communist Party of Cuba who held diplomatic or official passports. Focused on stamping out communism, he also targeted officers of the Cuban-backed Nicaraguan government and the ruling Sandinista National Liberation Front.

As mentioned above, President George H. Bush used the provision (8 USC §1182) only once. His sole use of the provision followed a 1991 a coup in Haiti that spurred thousands of people to flee on rickety boats and head for the U.S. Hundreds died at sea, but many were rescued, overwhelming processing centers set up at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and aboard Coast Guard cutters. Rather than allow Haitians to enter the United States and be screened, Bush issued an order “to enforce the suspension of the entry of undocumented aliens by sea and the interdiction of any covered vessel carrying such aliens,” allowing the U.S. to intercept the boats and send the migrants back.

President Obama turned to the provision more than any other recent president, using it to bar people who conducted certain transactions with North Korea, engaged in cyberattacks aimed at undermining democracy, or contributed to the destabilization of Libya, Burundi, Central African Republic or Ukraine. His broadest application of the law came in 2011, when he suspended entry of foreigners “who participate in serious human rights and humanitarian law violations and other abuses,” including “widespread or systemic violence against any civilian population” based on, among other factors, race, color, disability, language, religion, ethnicity, political opinion, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity.  Obama has also used the law to block anybody involved in “grave human rights abuses by the governments of Iran and Syria…..”

President Bill Clinton used the law to block perpetrators in the ethnic conflicts that erupted in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, targeting people responsible for the repression of civilians in Kosovo, along with those obstructing democracy in Yugoslavia or lending support to the Yugoslav government and the Republic of Serbia. In 1994, he also suspended individuals and their immediate family members who were said to formulate, implement, or benefit from policies that impeded war-torn Liberia’s transition to democracy. Similar suspensions were imposed on conflict-ravaged Sierra Leone in 2000.

President George W. Bush temporarily barred foreign government officials who were responsible for failing to combat human trafficking. He also blocked those whose actions threatened Zimbabwe’s democratic institutions and transition to a multiparty democracy. Amid concerns that Syria was fomenting instability in Lebanon, Syrian and Lebanese officials deemed responsible for policies or actions that threatened Lebanon’s sovereignty were also barred from entering the U.S.

To re-cap, several US presidents have banned aliens and have, in fact, targeted certain aliens in particular. Chinese were banned by Chester A. Arthur (ethnic class). Teddy Roosevelt banned anarchists (political). FDR banned Jews and Jimmy Carter banned Iranians (because of the Embassy takeover). Ronald Reagan banned Cubans (ethnic class). Clinton banned junta members of Sierra Leone and Haiti (politics). George Bush banned government officials from Zimbabwe and Belarus (politics). Even Obama banned people from Iraq.

IV. Sovereignty –

“A country that can no longer say who can, and who cannot, come in is no longer sovereign. A government that can no longer control immigration is no longer a legitimate government.”

Sovereignty is an important concept and probably the one most ignored in this current debate on the Executive Order’s temporary travel ban (from aliens from terrorist nations).

Sovereignty refers to the authority of a state to govern itself and to make all necessary laws and policies for the benefit of its physical jurisdiction and for its citizens. It’s most critical function is to keep the state safe and secure and to ensure its continued existence as an independent state. In other words, its most important function is national security. Immigration is intimately tied to the function of national security.

National security is a concept that a government, along with its parliaments, should protect the state and its citizens against all kind of “national” crises through a variety of power projections, such as political power, diplomacy, economic power, military might, and so on.

The Heritage Foundation published an excellent overview of the responsibility of the federal government in providing national security. The article explains:

Those who have not done so recently would benefit from studying what the United States Constitution says about the federal government’s responsibility to provide for the common defense. Most Americans had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution when they were children, so they are aware that one of the purposes of the document was to “provide for the common defense.” But they are not aware of the extent to which the document shows the Founders’ concern for national security.

In brief, the Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.

National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.

Article II establishes the President as the government’s chief executive officer. Much of that Article relates to the method for choosing the President and sets forth the general executive powers of his office, such as the appointment and veto powers. The only substantive function of government specifically assigned to the President relates to national security and foreign policy, and the first such responsibility granted him is authority to command the military; he is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century. But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article 4, Section 4 states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

National defense is exclusively the function of the national government. Under our Constitution, the states are generally sovereign, which means that the legitimate functions of government not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article I, Section 10 does specifically prohibit the states, except with the consent of Congress, from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or engaging in war, the only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded. (This was necessary because, when the Constitution was written, primitive forms of communication and transportation meant that it could take weeks before Washington was even notified of an invasion.)

In discussing the topic of national security, it is important to understand some of the concepts that the term incorporates.

The first is the concept of power. It can best be defined as a nation’s possession of control of its sovereignty and destiny. It implies some degree of control of the extent to which outside forces can harm the country. Hard, or largely military, power is about control, while soft power is mainly about influence—trying to persuade others, using methods short of war, to do something.

Instruments of power exist along a spectrum, from using force on one end to diplomatic means of persuasion on the other. Such instruments include the armed forces; law enforcement and intelligence agencies; and various governmental agencies dedicated to bilateral and public diplomacy, foreign aid, and international financial controls. Variables of power include military strength, economic capacity, the will of the government and people to use power, and the degree to which legitimacy—either in the eyes of the people or in the eyes of other nations or international organizations—affects how power is wielded. The measure of power depends not only on hard facts, but also on perceptions of will and reputation.

Another term to understand properly is military strength. This term refers to military capacity and the capabilities of the armed forces, and it is a capacity that may not actually be used. It often is understood as a static measure of the power of a country, but in reality, military strength is a variable that is subject to all sorts of factors, including the relative strength of opponents, the degree to which it is used effectively, or whether it is even used at all.

Force is the use of a military or law enforcement capacity to achieve some objective. It is the actual use of strength and should not be equated with either strength or power per se. Using force unwisely or unsuccessfully can diminish one’s power and strength. By the same token, using it effectively can enhance power. Force is an instrument of power just as a tool or some other device would be, but unlike institutional instruments like the armed forces, its use in action is what distinguishes it from static instruments of strength like military capacity. Thus, force should be understood narrowly as an applied instrument of coercion.

Finally, there is national defense. Strictly speaking, this refers to the ability of the armed forces to defend the sovereignty of the nation and the lives of its people; however, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the mission of homeland security—using domestic as well as military instruments to defend the nation from terrorist and other attacks either inside or outside the country—has come to be understood as an element of national defense.

V. The War on Terror and the President as Commander-in-Chief –

On September 11, 2001, 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Two of the planes were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Over 3,000 people were killed horrifically, including more than 400 police officers and firefighters. The Twin Towers collapsed, several surrounding buildings collapsed as well, and one section of the Pentagon was destroyed. Just like the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was a day that will live in infamy. It will continue to define certain human beings, certain groups, a fanatic religious ideology as pure evil.

[Osama bin Laden would issue a “Letter to America” in November 2002, explicitly stating that al-Qaeda’s motives for their attacks included: US support of Israel, support for the “attacks against Muslims” in Somalia, support of Philippines against Muslims in the Moro conflict, support for Israeli “aggression” against Muslims in Lebanon, support of Russian “atrocities against Muslims” in Chechnya, pro-American governments in the Middle East (who “act as your agents”) being against Muslim interests, support of Indian “oppression against Muslims” in Kashmir, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq].

As the dust barely settled in lower Manhattan on 9/11. President Bush addressed the American people and the world. He said: “Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes or in their offices — secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers. Moms and dads. Friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature, and we responded with the best of America, with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could. The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I’ve directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

In the months that followed, the US learned just how barbaric the attackers are. On January 23, 2002, Daniel Pearl, a reporter with the Wall Street Journal, left his apartment in Karachi, Pakistan for an interview. He had temporarily set up a residence in Karachi to report on America’s War on Terror. He was following a lead. He would never return that day. He was kidnapped and beheaded, with the captors turning over a 3-minute videotape of his grisly demise. President Bush watched the video. After the severed Pearl’s head, they cut up his body into ten pieces and put it into the shopping bags. They walked around with the bags to find a place to bury them, until they finally dug a hole just outside the building where he was killed. The floor of the room was then washed and they held sunset prayer there.

Months later, the US would articulate a new national security policy which would become known as the Bush Doctrine. The Bush doctrine signaled a radical break from previous national security strategies and fundamentally changed the way the US would act toward the rest of the world; the era of deterrence and containment was over. Deterrence and containment defined US policy at the end of 1945 and into the Cold War. The Bush Doctrine, defined in the positional paper “The National Security Strategy of the United States,” which was written by President Bush and the State Department (September 2002), was the answer to terrorism. As outlined in this paper, post-9/11 US foreign policy rests on three main pillars: a doctrine of unrivaled military supremacy, the concept of preemptive or preventive war, and a willingness to act unilaterally if multilateral cooperation cannot be achieved. President Bush argued that the new policy was necessary to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among rogue states and terrorist groups. The policy of deterrence, he maintained, was no longer sufficient to prevent a rogue nation or terrorist organization from using nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. He explained: “Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first. Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness.”

On Sept. 14, 2001, the U.S. Congress in effect declared war when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as a joint resolution. The vote was overwhelmingly one-sided. In the House, the vote was 420 Ayes, 1 Nay, and 10 Not Voting. In the Senate, the vote was 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 2 Present/Not Voting. Rep. Barbara Lee was the nay vote in the House.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president of the United States to notify Congress within 48 hours of ordering US armed forces for a military operation overseas. Those forces cannot operate in a deployed status for more than 60 days. Combat military operations lasting longer than that time frame require a congressional Declaration of War OR an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Bush almost unanimously got that AUMF from Congress in 2001 when he declared the war on terrorism.

The 2001 AUMF passed by Congress in the wake of the September 11 attacks authorized the President to use force, if necessary, to seek retribution (seek justice) for the attacks on 9/11. Specifically, the AUMF states: “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” In other words, with the AUMF, the President has been given a free hand in conducting the War on Terrorism and also in identifying the “enemy” or “enemies.” All he has to do his tie a person to an “organization” such as al-Qaeda and make a case that the person in some way “aided” the terrorists or will pose a threat by possibly or potentially engaging in future terrorist acts. [Note: There is no exception made for American citizens. There is no distinction between persons on American soil or in other countries].

The AUMF is the legal justification for the War on Terrorism. It authorizes military operations on a broad scope and in ways to be determined by the President. It elevates the president to Commander-in-chief. It has been used as the legal justification for American military action against al-Qaeda terrorists anywhere in the world, and as the legal justification for the continuing War on Terrorism. It is inconceivable that a court, let alone the highest court in the land – the Supreme Court, would overturn the power to declare war that is vested in the Congress. Congress alone has the power to declare war. It is a power explicitly and expressly delegated to the Congress in Article I of the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording: “The Congress shall have Power…. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress need not know the details of the war or how the President intends to “command” the war effort; the details do not necessarily limit the declaration of war. It is the declaration or the Authorization for Use of Military Force that establishes that the country is at war. A government during peacetime is much different from a government in time of war. [See Federalist No. 45, written by James Madison]

Congress controls the decision to wage war in another way. It provides the funding. Congress funds the war. And without fail, Congress has provided funding for the War on Terror since 2001. Again, once the country is at war, the president assumes almost plenary war powers (consistent with the Constitution, of course) and the nation goes into self-preservation and survival mode. In 2002, President Bush asked Congress for a separate Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the Iraqi War, which he received.

In 2012, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which, like other versions of the bill before it, specified the budget and expenditures of the US Dept. of Defense. A version of the bill had passed for 55 years. However, this bill was a bit different. It contained provisions that many found extremely troubling.

The most controversial provisions were contained in subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” which declared that the “battlefield” in the War on Terror also included the United States itself. It authorized the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including US citizens (termed “belligerents”) arrested on American soil.

Section 1021 of the NDAA reads:

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

With the NDAA, which has been re-upped for fiscal year 2017, we see the president enlarging his war powers. We see that he acknowledges that the war on terror has already come to our homeland.

In 2014, ISIS (The Islamic State) was gaining power and President Obama lacked a strategy to deal with it. At the end of the year, House Speaker John Boehner advised: “I would urge the president to submit a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) regarding our efforts to defeat and to destroy ISIL.” In that demand, Boehner was echoing constitutional scholar and then-presidential hopeful, Senator Ted Cruz and strict constitutionalist Rand Paul. Senator Cruz asserted that “initiating new military hostilities in a sustained basis in Iraq obligates the president to go back to Congress and to make the case to seek congressional authorization” and Senator Rand Paul said, “I believe the President must come to Congress to begin a war and that Congress has a duty to act. Right now, this war is illegal until Congress acts pursuant to the Constitution and authorizes it.” And so, in February 2015, President Obama asked Congress for that authorization. The US had already been bombing ISIS for six months. Ignoring the advice of Boehner, Cruz, and Paul, the White House claimed it already enjoyed the legal right to wage war under the 2001 AUMF and thus didn’t need the new authorization. But still, the White House went ahead and asked. It’s proposed AUMF would authorize force against ISIS, but only for three years. Congress never granted that AUMF, but it did go ahead and fund military actions.

Again, we note that the War on Terror is enlarging and in fact, as we learn from the events unfolding in the Middle East, the terrorist network is organizing, gaining power, and poised take over several regions. We see and that the United States is still very much determined to contain the growing evil that threatens the freedom and security of her citizens and of the world.

VI. The Korematsu v. United States decision (1944) –

The Korematsu case famously addresses the constitutionality of Japanese internment in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor by the empire of Japan. It addressed the war powers of Congress and the war powers of the President, as Commander-in-chief. The opinion, written by justice Hugo Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu’s individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent, and that the validity of action under the war power must be judged wholly in the context of war. He argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of “emergency and peril.”

The case upheld a law excluding certain Americans (American citizens, to be clear) from areas in the United States on account of national security. It found that although there was discrimination on account of nationality, which would subject that law to the most stringent of judicial scrutiny, the policy survived that scrutiny because national security required it.

We cannot forget that our country suffered an attack perhaps more horrific than Pearl Harbor on 9/11, as ordinary citizens were targeted in skyscrapers rather than military personnel. And although President Bush and his Homeland Security Department managed to keep us safe in our homeland during his two terms, President Obama and his Homeland Security team could not. In fact, as the world seemed to explode in Islamic attacks, so did our country. It seems quite clear to most people that terrorism is on the rise and that we need to ramp up both our offense and defense in this War on Terrorism.

The opinion of the Court, as delivered by Justice Hugo Black (appointed by FDR):

The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a “Military Area,” contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General of the Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that, after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner’s loyalty to the United States. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and the importance of the constitutional question involved caused us to grant certiorari.

It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.

In the instant case, prosecution of the petitioner was begun by information charging violation of an Act of Congress, of March 21, 1942, 56 Stat. 173, which provides that:

…..whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed, under the authority of an Executive order of the President, by the Secretary of War, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander, shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each offense.

Exclusion Order No. 34, which the petitioner knowingly and admittedly violated, was one of a number of military orders and proclamations, all of which were substantially based upon Executive Order No. 9066, 7 Fed.Reg. 1407. That order, issued after we were at war with Japan, declared that “the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national defense material, national defense premises, and national defense utilities….”

One of the series of orders and proclamations, a curfew order, which, like the exclusion order here, was promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 9066, subjected all persons of Japanese ancestry in prescribed West Coast military areas to remain in their residences from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. As is the case with the exclusion order here, that prior curfew order was designed as a “protection against espionage and against sabotage.” In Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), we sustained a conviction obtained for violation of the curfew order. The Hirabayashi conviction and this one thus rest on the same 1942 Congressional Act and the same basic executive and military orders, all of which orders were aimed at the twin dangers of espionage and sabotage.

The 1942 Act was attacked in the Hirabayashi case as an unconstitutional delegation of power; it was contended that the curfew order and other orders on which it rested were beyond the war powers of the Congress, the military authorities, and of the President, as Commander in Chief of the Army, and, finally, that to apply the curfew order against none but citizens of Japanese ancestry amounted to a constitutionally prohibited discrimination solely on account of race. To these questions, we gave the serious consideration which their importance justified. We upheld the curfew order as an exercise of the power of the government to take steps necessary to prevent espionage and sabotage in an area threatened by Japanese attack.

In the light of the principles, we announced in the Hirabayashi case, we are unable to conclude that it was beyond the war power of Congress and the Executive to exclude those of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war area at the time they did.True, exclusion from the area in which one’s home is located is a far greater deprivation than constant confinement to the home from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. Nothing short of apprehension by the proper military authorities of the gravest imminent danger to the public safety can constitutionally justify either. But exclusion from a threatened area, no less than curfew, has a definite and close relationship to the prevention of espionage and sabotage. The military authorities, charged with the primary responsibility of defending our shores, concluded that curfew provided inadequate protection and ordered exclusion. They did so, as pointed out in our Hirabayashi opinion, in accordance with Congressional authority to the military to say who should, and who should not, remain in the threatened areas.

In this case, the petitioner challenges the assumptions upon which we rested our conclusions in the Hirabayashi case. He also urges that, by May, 1942, when Order No. 34 was promulgated, all danger of Japanese invasion of the West Coast had disappeared. After careful consideration of these contentions, we are compelled to reject them.

Here, as in the Hirabayashi case:

….. we cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the war-making branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that, in a critical hour, such persons could not readily be isolated and separately dealt with, and constituted a menace to the national defense and safety which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard against it.

Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group. In the instant case, temporary exclusion of the entire group was rested by the military on the same ground. The judgment that exclusion of the whole group was, for the same reason, a military imperative answers the contention that the exclusion was in the nature of group punishment based on antagonism to those of Japanese origin. That there were members of the group who retained loyalties to Japan has been confirmed by investigations made subsequent to the exclusion. Approximately five thousand American citizens of Japanese ancestry refused to swear unqualified allegiance to the United States and to renounce allegiance to the Japanese Emperor, and several thousand evacuees requested repatriation to Japan.

We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens. Hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities, as well as its privileges, and, in time of war, the burden is always heavier. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when, under conditions of modern warfare, our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.

It is argued that, on May 30, 1942, the date the petitioner was charged with remaining in the prohibited area, there were conflicting orders outstanding, forbidding him both to leave the area and to remain there. Of course, a person cannot be convicted for doing the very thing which it is a crime to fail to do. But the outstanding orders here contained no such contradictory commands.

There was an order issued March 27, 1942, which prohibited petitioner and others of Japanese ancestry from leaving the area, but its effect was specifically limited in time “until and to the extent that a future proclamation or order should so permit or direct.” 7 Fed.Reg. 2601. That “future order,” the one for violation of which petitioner was convicted, was issued May 3, 1942, and it did “direct” exclusion from the area of all persons of Japanese ancestry before 12 o’clock noon, May 9; furthermore, it contained a warning that all such persons found in the prohibited area would be liable to punishment under the March 21, 1942, Act of Congress. Consequently, the only order in effect touching the petitioner’s being in the area on May 30, 1942, the date specified in the information against him, was the May 3 order which prohibited his remaining there, and it was that same order which he stipulated in his trial that he had violated, knowing of its existence. There is therefore no basis for the argument that, on May 30, 1942, he was subject to punishment, under the March 27 and May 3 orders, whether he remained in or left the area.

It does appear, however, that, on May 9, the effective date of the exclusion order, the military authorities had already determined that the evacuation should be effected by assembling together and placing under guard all those of Japanese ancestry at central points, designated as “assembly centers,” in order to insure the orderly evacuation and resettlement of Japanese voluntarily migrating from Military Area No. 1, to restrict and regulate such migration.

Public Proclamation No. 4, 7 Fed.Reg. 2601. And on May 19, 1942, eleven days before the time petitioner was charged with unlawfully remaining in the area, Civilian Restrictive Order No. 1, 8 Fed.Reg. 982, provided for detention of those of Japanese ancestry in assembly or relocation centers. It is now argued that the validity of the exclusion order cannot be considered apart from the orders requiring him, after departure from the area, to report and to remain in an assembly or relocation center. The contention is that we must treat these separate orders as one and inseparable; that, for this reason, if detention in the assembly or relocation center would have illegally deprived the petitioner of his liberty, the exclusion order and his conviction under it cannot stand.

We are thus being asked to pass at this time upon the whole subsequent detention program in both assembly and relocation centers, although the only issues framed at the trial related to petitioner’s remaining in the prohibited area in violation of the exclusion order. Had petitioner here left the prohibited area and gone to an assembly center, we cannot say, either as a matter of fact or law, that his presence in that center would have resulted in his detention in a relocation center. Some who did report to the assembly center were not sent to relocation centers, but were released upon condition that they remain outside the prohibited zone until the military orders were modified or lifted. This illustrates that they pose different problems, and may be governed by different principles. The lawfulness of one does not necessarily determine the lawfulness of the others. This is made clear when we analyze the requirements of the separate provisions of the separate orders. These separate requirements were that those of Japanese ancestry (1) depart from the area; (2) report to and temporarily remain in an assembly center; (3) go under military control to a relocation center, there to remain for an indeterminate period until released conditionally or unconditionally by the military authorities. Each of these requirements, it will be noted, imposed distinct duties in connection with the separate steps in a complete evacuation program. Had Congress directly incorporated into one Act the language of these separate orders, and provided sanctions for their violations, disobedience of any one would have constituted a separate offense. There is no reason why violations of these orders, insofar as they were promulgated pursuant to Congressional enactment, should not be treated as separate offenses.

Some of the members of the Court are of the view that evacuation and detention in an Assembly Center were inseparable. After May 3, 1942, the date of Exclusion Order No. 34, Korematsu was under compulsion to leave the area not as he would choose, but via an Assembly Center. The Assembly Center was conceived as a part of the machinery for group evacuation. The power to exclude includes the power to do it by force if necessary. And any forcible measure must necessarily entail some degree of detention or restraint, whatever method of removal is selected. But whichever view is taken, it results in holding that the order under which petitioner was convicted was valid.

It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers — and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps, with all the ugly connotations that term implies — we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot — by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight — now say that, at that time, these actions were unjustified.

Justice Felix Frankfurter concurred in the opinion. He wrote: The provisions of the Constitution which confer on the Congress and the President powers to enable this country to wage war are as much part of the Constitution as provisions looking to a nation at peace. And we have had recent occasion to quote approvingly the statement of former Chief Justice Hughes that the war power of the Government is “the power to wage war successfully.” Hirabayashi v. United States. Therefore, the validity of action under the war power must be judged wholly in the context of war.

The Korematsu decision has not been overturned. It is still good precedent.

While there are some who think Korematsu was a bad decision, Supreme Court great William Rehnquist thinks differently. In his 1998 book All the Laws But One – Civil Liberties in Wartime, he wrote: “An entirely separate and important philosophical question is whether occasional presidential excesses and judicial restraint in wartime are desirable or undesirable. In one sense, this question is very largely academic. There is no reason to think that future wartime presidents will act differently from Lincoln, Wilson, or Roosevelt, or that future Justices of the Supreme Court will decide questions differently than their predecessors.”

VI. Kerry v. Din (2015) —

The Kerry v. Din case is a recent case which speaks to the rights that foreign nationals are entitled to with respect to coming to the United States, and particularly when they come from a country that has a history of terrorism. If a person believes he or she has a right to something, such as “Life, Liberty, or Property,” then a violation of such, including imprisonment, confiscation, condemnation, a denial of an essential liberty right, triggers Due Process rights (that is, a process to challenge that denial under our constitution). When Due Process is violated, then there is potential Due Process violation, challengeable under the 5th amendment or 14th amendment (depending whether the denial is by the federal government or the state, respectively). In Kerry, the Supreme Court held: “No Due Process is owed when these interests are not at stake.” A foreign national (non-US citizen, not living in the US) is not entitled to a Due Process challenge because he has no rights that are respected by the US Constitution. Furthermore, he has no standing to bring suit in the United States for such a violation.

The case concerns a US citizen who married a citizen and resident of Afghanistan (that is, citizen of the latter). Fauzia Din, who is a United States citizen, filed a visa petition for her husband Kanishka Berashk, a citizen and resident of Afghanistan. She wanted to bring him to the United States. Nine months later, the State Department denied the petition based on a broad provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that excludes aliens on terrorism-related grounds. Berashk asked for clarification of the visa denial and was told that it is not possible for the Embassy to provide him with a detailed explanation of the reasons for denial.

After several other unsuccessful attempts to receive explanation of the visa denial, Din sued and argued that denying notice for aliens who were not granted a visa based on terrorism grounds is unconstitutional. The federal district court held that Din did not have standing to challenge the visa denial notice. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the government is required to give notice of reasons for visa denial based on terrorism grounds. The Ninth Circuit held two things: (1) that a U.S. citizen has a protected liberty interest in her marriage that entitled her to review of the denial of a visa to her non-U.S.-citizen spouse, and (2) that the US government deprived her of that liberty interest when it denied the spouse’s visa application without providing a more detailed explanation of its reasons.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court in 2013 and was decided in 2015. The question presented was this: “Is the government required to give a detailed explanation for denying an alien’s visa based on terrorism-related ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act?”

In a 5-4 decision for Kerry, delivered by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that Mrs. Din was not deprived of any constitutional rights in the due process of law by denying a full explanation of why an alien’s visa was denied. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no citizen may be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without due process, but judicial precedent has held that no due process is owed when these interests are not at stake. Because none of these interests are implicated in the denial of a nonresident alien’s visa application, there is no denial of due process when the visa application is rejected without explanation. Although “liberty” has been construed to refer to fundamental rights, there is no precedent that supports the contention that the right to live with one’s spouse is such a fundamental right.

The Court agreed with Secretary John Kerry (State Department) that the U.S. has never recognized a liberty interest in having a citizen’s alien spouse admitted to the U.S, and that Congress has plenary power to deny admission. As Scalia wrote: “Neither Din’s right to live with her spouse nor her right to live within this country is implicated here. There is a “simple distinction between government action that directly affects a citizen’s legal rights, or imposes a direct restraint on his liberty, and action that is directed against a third party and affects the citizen only indirectly or incidentally.” The Government has not refused to recognize Din’s marriage to Berashk, and Din remains free to live with her husband anywhere in the world that both individuals are permitted to reside. And the Government has not expelled Din from the country. It has simply determined that Kanishka Berashk engaged in terrorist activities within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and has therefore denied him admission into the country.”

The Court further analyzed whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring opinion, he wrote: “Notice requirements do not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one’s spouse. Furthermore, Kennedy reasoned that because the decision was made based on a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason,” the courts need not look any further, especially when national security is involved. He wrote that notice requirements “do not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.”

VIII. No Discrimination –

The Left and the media has been misrepresenting President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration and refugee admission as a “Muslim ban” – or, more cleverly, a ban on immigration from “Muslim-majority countries.” In truth, the ban applies to everyone from the countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – Muslim, Christian, whatever. In fact, one of the first families caught at the airport when the executive order went into effect was a Christian family from Syria.

These seven nations were not chosen at random. They were all singled out as exceptional security risks in the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015 and its 2016 extension. In fact, President Trump’s order does not even name the seven countries. It merely refers to the sections of U.S. Code that were changed by the Terrorist Prevention Act, signed by President Obama in 2015 and then extended in 2016.

The list of seven nations which was compiled by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, actually goes back to Obama’s first term, around 2011. Obama made this list, not Donald Trump, and there was very little resistance from congressional Democrats at any step in the process singling out these countries for the potential danger they pose (or for the inability to provide adequate information on their citizens). And that speaks volumes. There was no resistance because the list was perfectly sensible.

Again, on its face, the Executive Order is neutral. Only the Left reads discrimination into it. Only the Left puts the concerns and rights of non-citizens above those of citizens.

But even if the travel ban were discriminatory, the Supreme Court, in Korematsu, explained how we assess its constitutionality or lack thereof. Justice Black wrote: “It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.” In other words, the burden on civil liberties is to be balanced with the public necessity. The burden may also be balanced with the severity of the threat to national security. In short, we have to ensure that government strikes the proper balance between liberty and security, with the greater weight placed properly. A nation devoted to the liberties of its citizens can only live up to those promises as long as it continues to exist. If the nation is cannibalized by the very freedoms that it seeks to protect so that its very existence is threatened, then no one’s rights are secure. Liberty no longer has a safe haven.

If we were to balance the burden on civil liberties by the burden placed on non-citizens (who arguably have no entitlement or right to come here to the United States), in the balancing test outlined by the Supreme Court (aka, “strict scrutiny”), we would need to balance that burden by the need to protect our country and its citizens from the violent attacks that are occurring, and occurring at a greatly increased frequency, by persons of one particular religious sect (or ideology). By all accounts, those seeking to do harm to us (“Death to America!”) will seek to slip into the country through the refugee and relocation programs. We then need to evaluate that burden and ask if it is reasonable and whether there are other less burdensome policies to achieve the same result. Is a 90-day temporary ban reasonable? Is it reasonable to require those seven countries listed in the Executive Order to comply with a request from our State Department and Homeland Security Department to provide reliable and verifiable information on its nationals so that the United States can properly assess and vet these individuals for entry into our cities and communities?

We are not talking about the issue of whether non-citizens living in the United States should be recognized with similar rights as citizens (minus the right to vote and hold office). We are talking about the right to come here in the first place. The “right” of a foreigner to come here necessarily burdens the right of the government to control immigration and set policy for national security.

IX. No Right to Come Here —

It is settled jurisprudence that an unadmitted, non-resident alien has no right of entry into the United States and cannot challenge his denial of his visa application. In other words, he has no protections under our Constitution and no right to use it for purposes to sue. Simply put, he has no standing. [Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, cited on pg. 762 (1972)]

The decision of the Supreme Court in Kleindienst was delivered by Justice Harry Blackmun. In that decision, the Court noted Congress’ longstanding power to exclude aliens from the United States, and to set the terms and conditions of their entry. Through the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress legitimately delegated to the executive the authority to waive a finding of inadmissibility. He described the historical pattern of increasing federal control on the admissibility of aliens, particularly regarding individuals with Communist affiliation or views. Justice Blackmun held that the Court would not intervene so long as the executive used its waiver power on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason. “In the exercise of Congress’ plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in § 212(a)(28) of the Act has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch. When, as in this case, the Attorney General decides for a legitimate and bona fide reason not to waive the statutory exclusion of an alien, courts will not look behind his decision or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of those who would personally communicate with the alien.” At pp. 761-770.].

X. Standing –

The states of Washington and Minnesota alleged that it had standing to challenge the validity of President Trump’s Executive Order, claiming it would suffer irreparable injury. It alleged that the order was directed at the Muslim religion, that there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States from any persons from the countries listed in the ban which would make the religious targeting unconstitutional, and that to block Muslims from entering Washington would cause it irreparable injury. To be clear, the focus of the states’ legal challenge was the way the president’s Executive Order targeted Islam.

Michelle Bennett, lawyer for the federal government, criticized the judge’s issuing the TRO, claiming the states of Washington and Minnesota lack standing. She argues that the states can’t sue on behalf of citizens and the states and also questions the rationale for their particular claim that the ban would cause irreparable injury

What is “standing”?

“Standing” is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. In law, “standing” is the legal right to bring a lawsuit to court. Usually, it requires that the plaintiff, or the person who brings the case, has either been affected by the events in the case or will be imminently affected or harmed if the court does not address the problem. Standing is also affected by state or federal laws that apply to the events in the case, since some laws do not allow injured plaintiffs to sue certain defendants even if the plaintiff can demonstrate that she was injured by the defendant’s actions.

A plaintiff usually demonstrates that she has standing by including the following elements in her Complaint, which is the document that opens a lawsuit in court and gives the defendant some idea of what he’s being sued for. In order to show standing, most courts require the plaintiff to mention the following three things in the Complaint:

(i) Injury: The plaintiff must show either that she has been injured in a particular way or will be injured in a particular way if the court does not act to prevent it (this is the basis of many requests for injunctions). The injury can be physical, mental/emotional, financial, or an injury to one of the plaintiff’s civil rights, as long as it is a specific injury.
(ii) Causation: The plaintiff must show there’s some connection between the injury and the defendant’s actions or planned actions. In a Complaint, causation is usually shown by a single sentence linking the defendant’s acts to the plaintiff’s injury. Complicated questions involving cause in fact or proximate cause are usually saved for trial.
(iii) Addressability: The situation has to be one the court can fix in some way, whether it’s by issuing an injunction, ordering the defendant to pay damages, or by some other particular method.

In order to keep lawsuits focused on a plaintiff who was actually injured and a defendant who may be responsible, U.S. courts have, over the years, limited the kinds of cases a plaintiff has standing to bring.

Currently, a plaintiff does not have standing if any of the following are true:

(i) The plaintiff is a third party who was not injured herself, but is suing on behalf of someone who was injured. Exceptions to this rule include parents who sue on behalf of their injured children and legally-appointed guardians who sue on behalf of their wards. Courts have also allowed organizations to sue on behalf of their members in a few cases where it was obvious that all the members faced the same injury.
(ii) The plaintiff tries to sue on behalf of some large, unidentified group who may or may not be injured. Often called “taxpayer standing,” this rule prevents cases in which one plaintiff attempts to sue the government on the grounds that the plaintiff, a taxpayer, doesn’t like what the government is doing with tax revenues. So far, the only exception to this rule has been certain cases brought under the First Amendment Establishment Clause to prevent the government from funneling taxpayer dollars to particular religious institutions.

(iii) The plaintiff is not in the “zone of interest” or “zone of injury.” In other words, the plaintiff is not the kind of person a particular law was designed to protect, and/or the plaintiff is not the kind of person that lawmakers expected to be injured if they did not enact the law. For instance, a plaintiff who has severe dog allergies does not have standing to sue a dog owner for failing to license her dog, since “severe allergy attacks” were not the kind of injury the dog license law was designed to prevent, and “people with severe dog allergies” were not the kind of people the law is designed to protect. (A severe allergy sufferer may, however, have standing to sue a neighbor dog owner for nuisance or even assault if, for instance, the neighbor encourages the dog to approach the allergic plaintiff even though the neighbor knows this will make the plaintiff very ill and might even cause death.)

The state of Washington (and then Minnesota would join in) asserted it had standing to bring the challenge by claiming that the Order would “adversely affect the States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel,” and that these harms “extend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders.” Furthermore, the states claimed that they would be harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the Order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States’ operations, tax bases, and public funds. They claimed the harm is significant and ongoing. Judge Robart agreed with the states’ position.

In issuing the Temporary Restraining Order, Judge Robart wrote: “It is an interesting question in regards to the standing of the states to bring this action. I’m sure the one item that all counsel would agree on is that the standing law is a little murky. I find, however, that the state does have standing in regards to this matter, and therefore they are properly here. And I probed with both counsel my reasons for finding that, which have to do with direct, immediate harm going to the states, as institutions, in addition to harm to their citizens, which they are not able to represent as directly.”

On the same day that Judge Robart issued the TRO (February 4), the government submitted an Emergency Motion to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting that the injunction (or TRO) to be vacated.

The government’s position is that the states of Washington and Minnesota lack standing and that they failed to make a legitimate showing of standing in their motion for the TRO. In its Emergency Motion to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the government asserted:

“The district court reasoned that the Washington has Article III standing because the Order “adversely affects the States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel,” and that these harms “extend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders.” But a State cannot bring a parens patriae action against federal defendants. In dismissing Massachusetts’ challenge to a federal statute designed to “protect the health of mothers and infants” in Massachusetts v. Mellon, the Supreme Court explained that “it is no part of a State’s duty or power to enforce [its citizens’] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government.” 262 U.S. 447, 478, 485-86 (1923); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 324 (1966). The district court also reasoned that “the States themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the Order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States’ operations, tax bases, and public funds.” These attenuated and speculative alleged harms are neither concrete nor particularized. With respect to Washington’s public universities, most if not all of the students and faculty members the State identifies are not prohibited from entering the United States, and others’ alleged difficulties are hypothetical or speculative.

That is particularly true given the Order’s waiver authority. See Executive Order §§ 3(g), 5(e). Furthermore, any assertion of harm to the universities’ reputations and ability to attract students is insufficiently concrete for standing. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990). And although Washington suggested that the Order might affect its recruitment efforts and child welfare system, it conceded that it could not identify any currently affected state employees, nor any actual impact on its child welfare system.

Washington’s contentions regarding its tax base and public funds are equally flawed. See Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12, 17-18 (1927) (finding no standing based on Florida’s allegation that challenged law would diminish tax base); see also, e.g., Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Block, 771 F.2d 347, 353 (8th Cir. 1985). Nor does Washington have any “legally protected interest,” Arizona Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 134 (2011), in the grant or denial of entry to an alien outside the United States. The INA’s carefully reticulated scheme provides for judicial review only at the behest of an alien adversely affected, and even then only if the alien is subject to removal proceedings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Under longstanding principles exemplified by the doctrine of consular non-reviewability, an alien abroad cannot obtain judicial review of the denial of a visa (or his failure to be admitted as a refugee). Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180, 184 (1956). It follows that a third party, like Washington, has no “judicially cognizable interest,” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973), in such a denial. Or to put it in Administrative Procedure Act (APA) terms, review is precluded by the INA, the relevant determinations are committed to the Executive’s discretion (indeed, to the President, who is not subject to the APA), and Washington lacks a cause of action. 5 U.S.C. §§ 701(a), (702).”

The Ninth Circuit denied the government’s motion.

Did the Ninth Circuit engage in partisan politics by denying the government’s motion ?

XI. Conclusion —

In conclusion, in light of the government’s obligation to keep the country safe and secure, in light of its war powers, its powers with respect to immigration, foreign policy, and national security, and noting that the temporary ban is neutral with respect to the religion of the people impacted, the Executive Order should be upheld. Furthermore, even if the Order targets a class of persons, a balancing test will show that the temporary nature of the ban is more than reasonable in light of the threats posed by terrorists who may try to use the relocation efforts to gain access to the United States and do irreparable harm. Finally, the Executive Order is merely a reasonable expansion of a program that has already been in place under the previous administration.

References:

Executive Order: “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (Jan. 27, 2017). Referenced at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation- foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

Temporary Restraining Order (Washington v. Donald Trump, President of the United States), issued by Judge Robart. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3446391-Robart-Order.html

The FEDRAL GOVERNMENT’S APPEAL: of The State of Wasington’s Emergency Motion for Administrative Stay and Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (State of Washington v. Donald Trump, President of the United States, in the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) – http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-0c44-d96b-a7fe-1efdf8da0001

8 U.S. Code §1187 – Visa Waiver Program for Certain Visitors. Referenced at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 8 U.S.C. 1187, Section 217 – VISA WAIVER 2/ PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN VISITORS. Referenced at: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-4391.html

8 U.S Code Chapter 12: IMMIGRATION and NATURALIZATION – aka, The Immigration and Naturality Act of 1952. Referenced at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12

“A Constitutional Basis for Defense,” The Heritage Foundation. Referenced at: http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/constitutional-basis-defense

Matthew I. Hirsch, “The Visa Waiver Program,” (8 U.S.C. 1187, Section 217: Visa. Waiver Waiver”) Referenced: http://hirschlaw1.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/website.aila_.visawaiver.pdf

John Howard, “The Seven Nations Covered by Trump’s Executive Order,” Breitbart, Jan. 30, 2017. Referenced at: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/01/30/7-nations-named-trump-executive-order-security-nightmares/

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/323/214

Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1402_e29g.pdf

Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/753/case.html

Asra Q. Nomani, “This is Daniel Pearl’s Final Story,” Washingtonian. Referenced at: https://www.washingtonian.com/projects/KSM/

Sean Hannity, “There are Four Times the US Stopped Immigrants from a Particular Group.

Referenced at:  http://www.hannity.com/articles/immigration-487258/here-are-four-previous-times-the-14188916/

Daniel Greenfield, “When Roosevelt Banned Muslims from America,” Frontpagemag, August 18, 2016.  Referenced at:  http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263879/when-teddy-roosevelt-banned-muslims-america-daniel-greenfield

Ann M. Simmons and Alan Zarembo, “Other Presidents Have Blocked Groups of Foreigners from the US, But Never So Broadly,” LA Times, January 31, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigrant-ban-history-20170130-story.html

The Alien & Sedition Acts, Constitutional Rights Foundation.  Referenced at:  http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-alien-and-sedition-acts.html

 

What is Standing? (Rottenstein Law Group). http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-standing/

Washington shopping mall mass shooter – an illegal immigrant (from a Muslim country) who voted 3 times. Referenced at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cDwCK3Dpcg [Published on Sep 28, 2016. A man who went on a shooting rampage in a store in the Cascade Mall in Burlington, Washington is in custody, accused of killing five people. The suspect, Arcan Cetin, a 20-year-old, is being charged with five counts of first-degree premeditated murder. There’s also another element to the story that could result in other charges for Cetin. The Cascade mall shooter isn’t a U.S. citizen, but voted in 3 election cycles. From King 5: The Cascade Mall shooting suspect, Arcan Cetin, may face an additional investigation related to his voting record and citizenship status. Federal sources confirm to KING 5 that Cetin was not a U.S. citizen, meaning legally he cannot vote. However, state records show Cetin registered to vote in 2014 and participated in three election cycles, including the May presidential primary. While voters must attest to citizenship upon registering online or registering to vote at the Department of Licensing Office, Washington state doesn’t require proof of citizenship. Therefore, elections officials say the state’s elections system operates, more or less, under an honor system. — Just a couple years ago, then-Attorney General Eric Holder said vote fraud was “a problem that doesn’t exist.” They operate on the honor system? What could go wrong? — That can’t be so. We’ve been assured voter fraud is a myth. The story doesn’t say who Cetin voted for. This story highlights that immigration laws and criminal laws aren’t the only laws that illegal immigrants break and are breaking. Why was FOX News the only national news organization covering this story?

Justice Jeanine Pirro (Justice with Jeanine) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsjcLUM6xI

APPENDIX:

Executive Order: “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (Jan. 27, 2017)

EXECUTIVE ORDER

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Secti  on 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numer  ous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
der to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec.   2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec.   3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b)   The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d);Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.    (b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.    Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment