So perfect that they put in the disclaimer that the first ban was not Islamophobic. To burn that into some kind of public record that Sarah Huckabee can point to later as proof that there was no prejudice⌠No accountability ever, on anything - thatâs the basis of all strategy and decision making.
So the Muslim Ban is back. Good luck getting it through the courts.
They also probably added that because Trump couldnât admit that he screwed up with the first one. Trump is incapable of admitting error and he has to have to last word, so we can expect more of these statements every time heâs blocked in court or elsewhere and issues another EO.
Well shitâŚ
They forgot the part about speaking only English when youâre out shopping again â
Conspicuously absent, just as was the case with the first one, is the description of the âthreatâ that this ban is supposed to solve and how the ban actually helps address that threat. Maybe they should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, as reported in the Washington Post:
A Department of Homeland Security report assessing the terrorist threat posed by people from the seven countries covered by President Trumpâs original travel ban had cast doubt on the necessity of the executive order, concluding that citizenship was an âunreliableâ threat indicator and that people from the affected countries have rarely been implicated in U.S.-based terrorism.
One other note from the article: theyâre going to do their best to not have to justify this ban in court. An anonymous DHS official, âasserted that the administration should not be pressed by the judiciary to unveil sensitive national security details to justify the ban. âThis is not something that the Department of Justice should have to represent to a federal district court judge,â the official said.â
Yes, heaven forbid that we actually have some oversightâŚ
Any guesses on which parties are going to respond and how? (challenge this in court)
I would bet that Washington State takes the lead again, perhaps joined by California, New York, Massachusetts, and Colorado or Minnesota.
âWhile that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion.â
So, it was just a coincidence that the previous order applied only to countries in which Islam was not a minority religion.
Now that The New York Times, et. al., have written about it, they can cite them, too.
And look at what I just stumbled onâŚ
The ACLU is on it already, has plans to sue.
Iâm not surprised at all. The complaint was probably drafted and just waiting to be filed. The only question is where.
Pretty sure the Judiciary doesnât really care all that much what the Executive wants them to do. Separate and Co-Equal and allâŚ
So theyâve had a month since the last one but still need the same amount of time to work on changing the current processes? Good to know they havenât worked on this so-called emergency in a month.
What I want to know is what did Iraq pay to the Trump family to get off the list? I am not sure how this works, extra business, oil deals, Swiss bank accounts? The only other nation with cash on the list is Iran and I get the feeling the Trump-Israeli connection would frown on that.
My guess is Malaysia and Indonesia are frantically looking to grease the skids so they can stay off the list. What is Seymour Hersh up to? Maybe he can get to the bottom of this.
And eating at an Applebeeâs. It empowers any citizen to smash you in the face with a beer glass if you speak any brown languages in public.