My defence of President Trump’s refugee ban – commentary

Aussie Nationalist Blog

I recall back in December 2015, when Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, called for a blanket ban on Muslim immigration.

During this time,I supported Trump’s proposed Muslimban, and 18 months later, I also support theevolved ban, which has moved to prevent immigration from 7 Islamic countries riddled with terrorism, instead ofall 57.

Predictably, Trump has taken tremendous heat both in American media and across the world.

But there are many issuesin the arguments ofthese armchair critics.

First, critics of Trump’s immigration ban generally lack a basic understanding of Islam. Certainly, I am open to debating any idea put forward while discussing how to counter Islamic terrorism.

But withoutfirst acknowledging the factthat Islam compels its followers to wage war against disbelievers, and pushes towards establishing Islamic supremacy with the ultimate goal of installingSharia law, they are unqualified to meaningfully discuss this subject. Because these pundits don’t understand Islam, they…

View original post 510 more words

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Ric Hinds  On February 4, 2017 at 6:34 am

    You are uninformed (edited by Guyanese Online blog editor) – and I am not Muslim. You obviously don’t know your history:
    Muslims ruled India for more than 1000 years, yet all the Muslim converts were voluntary (to escape the caste system of Hinduism); The Ottoman Empire was home to many Jews, most of whom were kicked out of European countries like Spain; During the crusades, the Saracens (Turks) killed only combatants who would not surrender, but spared the lives of Jews, Christians, and children. None were ever required to convert to Islam. The Crusaders killed all but Christians when they took Jerusalem; Lastly, for every Muslim radical seeking to subvert all others throughout history, I can name you many followers of other mainstream religions who have slaughtered in name of religion, for conquest and greed, or just simply hate. Remember, Joshua, Nero, Genghis Khan, Columbus and Cortez, and Hitler – to name a few. However, you may be either too stupid or too hateful to look at Islam objectively. I PITY YOU! RICH.

  • Clyde Duncan  On February 5, 2017 at 7:06 am

    The ‘So-called Judge’ Who Stymied Trump’s Ban Is A Tough Conservative Who Fostered 6 At-risk Children

    Judge James L. Robart, 69, was appointed by Bush in 2004 after 30 years of private practice. ‘He’s conservative in his review of the law, but courageous in his application of it,’ former colleague says.

    The Associated Press | Haaretz

    The Seattle judge derided by President Donald Trump on Twitter Saturday after blocking Trump’s executive order on immigration is known for his conservative legal views, for a record of helping disadvantaged children that includes fostering six of them, and for dramatically declaring “Black Lives Matter” during a hearing on police reform in 2015.

    Judge James L. Robart, 69, was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2004, following a distinguished 30-year career in private practice that included his selection to the American College of Trial Lawyers, an honour bestowed on less than 1 percent of lawyers.

    The judge made the most high-profile ruling of his tenure Friday when he temporarily invalidated Trump’s ban on travel to the U.S.A. from seven primarily Muslim nations. Washington State sued to block the order — with support from Minnesota and major corporations including Microsoft, Amazon and Expedia — arguing that it’s unconstitutional and would harm its residents, and Robart held that the state was likely correct. The Justice Department on Saturday officially appealed the ruling.

    The ruling did not sit well with the president. “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned,” Trump tweeted.

    It’s a comment unlikely to sway Robart, said those who know him.

    A former Seattle U.S.A. attorney, Jenny Durkan, called Robart exacting: “We won some in front of him, and we lost some in front of him. But we knew anytime we walked into his courtroom we’d better be prepared.”

    That was evident Friday when Robart grilled a Justice Department lawyer, asking if there had been any terrorist attacks by people from the seven counties since the Sept. 11 attacks. Bennett said she didn’t know.

    “The answer is none,” Robart said. “You’re here arguing we have to be protected from these individuals from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

    Robart, a graduate of Georgetown Law School, is an expert in patent and intellectual property law. He issued a landmark decision — later upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — in a lawsuit between Microsoft and Motorola that provided guidance in how to calculate reasonable rates for use of another company’s patents.

    He’s considered a tough sentencing judge in criminal matters, especially in cases involving white-collar defendants. He has overseen reforms at the Seattle Police Department since 2012, when it agreed to make changes in response to Justice Department findings that its officers were too quick to use force, especially in low-level situations.

    Robart was holding a hearing in that case in summer 2015 — a time fraught with tension over violence by and against police officers around the country — when he surprised the courtroom by adopting the mantra of protesters.

    “The importance of this issue to me is best demonstrated by the news,” he said, shaking his head and sighing heavily. “According to FBI statistics, police shootings resulting in death involve 41 percent black people, despite being only 20 percent of the population living in those cities. Forty-one percent of the casualties, 20 percent of the population: Black Lives Matter.”

    Robart donated to the state Republican party and to GOP candidates before becoming a judge, but he was picked for the bench with the help of a bipartisan selection panel. He helped lead his law firm’s efforts to provide free legal services to those who couldn’t afford them, and he served as president of Seattle Children’s Home, which offers mental health services and special education for at-risk children.

    And as U.S.A. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., noted during his confirmation hearing, he and his wife had fostered six children themselves.

    Robart drew high praise from Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who cited his “exceptional qualifications” and his work representing southeast Asian refugees.

    “Working with people who have an immediate need and an immediate problem that you are able to help with is the most satisfying aspect of the practice of law,” Robart said then. “If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed by the Senate, I will take that experience to the courtroom with me, recognize that you need to treat everyone with dignity and with respect, and to engage them so that when they leave the courtroom they feel like they had a fair trial and that they were treated as a participant in the system.”


    Federal Court Denies Trump’s Appeal for Immediate Reinstatement of Travel Ban

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit gives Justice Department until Monday to submit reply in support of the emergency appeal against U.S.A. District Judge James Robart’s ruling.

    Reuters | Haaretz

    A U.S. appeal court late on Saturday denied an emergency appeal from the U.S. Department of Justice to restore an immigration order from President Donald Trump barring citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries and temporarily banning refugees.

    “Appellants’ request for an immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied,” said the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    It added, a reply from the Department in support of the emergency appeal was due on Monday.

    The government moved to reverse a federal judge’s Friday order that lifted the travel ban and warned the decision posed an immediate harm to the public, thwarted enforcement of an executive order and second-guessed the president’s national security judgment.

    Robart’s ruling came in a case brought by the state attorney general of Washington State and was backed by major state employers Inc and Expedia Inc. The lawsuit is one of several now filed against the Trump executive order around the United States of America, but it was the first case leading to a broad decision that applies nationwide.

    The Justice Department appeal criticized Robart’s legal reasoning and said the State of Washington lacked standing to challenge the order and didn’t identify any legal defect in the order.

    State lawyers worked around the clock last weekend against the backdrop of turbulent scenes at U.S.A. airports, where immigrants were detained by federal officials unprepared to implement the president’s directive.

    The U.S. State Department and Department of Homeland Security said they were complying with Robart’s order and many visitors are expected to start arriving on Sunday, while the government said it expects to begin admitting refugees again on Monday.

    The panel that will decide whether to immediately block the ruling includes three judges appointed by former Republican president George W. Bush and two former Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.

    Amen. -clyde

  • Clyde Duncan  On February 5, 2017 at 7:09 am

    Speak your truth quietly and clearly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story. Be yourself. – Desiderata

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: