Author Topic: FDR Halted German, Japanese Naturalization After Pearl Harbor "interfering by word or deed with the defense of the United States or political processes and public opinions thereof"  (Read 2295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis
Trump is just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.
December 8, 2015
Daniel Greenfield
 

 

Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Here's Jimmy "Hitler" Carter saying it back in 1980.

    Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will 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.

Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against "our values" after all. It may even be "who we are". Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.

Meanwhile here's how the Iranian students in the US were treated.

    Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation.

In November 1979, the Attorney General had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Around 7,000 were found in violation of their visas. Around 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the US.

Meanwhile any Iranians entering the US were forced to undergo secondary screening.

Interestingly enough, Carter did this by invoking the Nationality Act of 1952. A law originally opposed by Democrats for its attempt to restrict Communist immigration to the United States.

“If this oasis of the world should be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished,” Senator McCarran said of the law. He was a Democrat.

Now unlike Muslims, Iranians were not necessarily supportive of Islamic terrorism. Many were and are opponents of it. Khomeini didn't represent Iran as a country, but his Islamist allies. So Trump's proposal is far more legitimate than Carter's action. Carter targeted people by nationality. Trump's proposal does so by ideology.

Classifying Iranians as a group is closer to racism than classifying people by a racist supremacist ideology that calls for the mass murder and enslavement of non-Muslims, as ISIS is doing today.

One of the neater subsets of the 1952 Act barred the entry of, "(11) Aliens who are polygamists or who practice polygamy or advocate the practice of polygamy."

I wonder which creed this might apply to.

Maybe the professional conservatives running around shrieking their heads off can calm down now long enough to have a rational conversation on the subject.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 03:32:01 pm by rangerrebew »

rangerrebew

  • Guest
FDR Halted German, Japanese Naturalization After Pearl Harbor
"interfering by word or deed with the defense of the United States or political processes and public opinions thereof"
December 8, 2015
Daniel Greenfield
 
 

A little bit of American history. After Pearl Harbor, the naturalization of enemy aliens was suspended for a time.

The myth popularized by the left is that after Pearl Harbor the United States began randomly going after Japanese-Americans because of racism. The actual reality is that the United States began relocating "enemy aliens" in the West Coast, which meant Germans, Japanese and Italians who were not United States citizens. Race wasn't the issue. Fear of an invasion was.

Executive Order 9066 is what the left loves talking about. And it's bringing up 9066 in reference to Trump's comments. But far more relevant are Presidential Proclamations 2525 through 2527.

Let's start with FDR's Presidential Proclamation 2525 after Pearl Harbor. It applied to the Japanese, 2526 to the Germans, 2527 to the Italians. But otherwise they were basically the same. Trump actually referenced these on Good Morning America as the basis for his proposals.

    WHEREAS it is provided by Section 21 of Title 50 of the United States Code [11 F. C. A., tit. 50, § 21] as follows: "Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies..."

FDR was quoting the law circa 1798. Specifically, "An Act Respecting Alien Enemies". The more relevant one at present is the Alien Friends Act. But since FDR was dealing with a straightforward declared war, he went with the first of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

It's still the law today.

    Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

    (R.S. § 4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

But here's some of the key language in FDR's proclamation.

    "All alien enemies are enjoined to preserve the peace toward the United States and to refrain from crime against public safety, and from violating the laws of the United States and of the States and Territories thereof; and to refrain from actual hostility or giving information, aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States or interfering by word or deed with the defense of the United States or political processes and public opinions thereof; and to comply strictly with the regulations which are hereby or which may be from time to time promulgated by the President."

FDR wasn't engaging in a random crackdown. He was alien residents to avoid the types of behaviors that have unfortunately become routine with Muslim groups in America. CAIR alone has repeatedly violated these terms.

Note the part about " interfering by word or deed with the defense of the United States or political processes and public opinions thereof;". This was a ban on engaging in propaganda. And effectively a ban on support for the enemy.

    (13) No alien enemy shall be a member or an officer of, or affiliated with, any organization, group or assembly hereafter designated by the Attorney General, nor shall any alien enemy advocate, defend or subscribe to the acts, principles or policies thereof, attend any meetings, conventions or gatherings thereof or possess or distribute any literature, propaganda or other writings or productions thereof.

Now, here's the interesting part, as far as the debate over guns and the no-fly list is concerned.

    (5) No alien enemy shall have in his possession, custody or control at any time or place or use or operate any of the following enumerated articles:

    a. Firearms.

    b. Weapons or implements of war or component parts thereof.

    c. Ammunition.

    d. Bombs.

    e. Explosives or material used in the manufacture of explosives.

    f. Short-wave radio receiving sets.

    g. Transmitting sets.

    h. Signal devices.

    i. Codes or ciphers.

    j. Cameras.

    k. Papers, documents or books in which there may be invisible writing; photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or graphical representation of any military or naval installations or equipment or of any arms, ammunition, implements of war, device or thing used or intended to be used in the combat equipment of the land or naval forces of the United States or any military or naval post, camp or station.

Radios and flashlights were in fact confiscated from German, Japanese and Italian Americans. This may seem irrational in hindsight, but remember we didn't know what to expect back then, and we were thinking that the United States might face something like the conditions that existed in the UK at the time. Which meant that spies signaling bombers represented a real threat.

And there was a hell of a flight ban.

    (6) No alien enemy shall undertake any air flight or ascend into the air in any airplane, aircraft or balloon of any sort whether owned governmentally, commercially or privately, except that travel by an alien enemy in an airplane or aircraft may be authorized by the Attorney General, or his representative, or the Secretary of War, or his representative, in their respective jurisdictions, under such regulations as they shall prescribe.

And...

    (12) No alien enemy shall enter or be found in or upon any highway, waterway, airway, railway, railroad, subway, public utility, building, place or thing not open and accessible to the public generally, and not generally used by the public.

Much of this proved unnecesary during WW2. But it was a legacy from WW1 in which German agents carried out a variety of terrorist attacks in the United States, including one that seriously damaged the Statue of Liberty.

There were a number of these proclamations during WW2 and even afterward from FDR and even Truman. And while they arguably went too far in addressing a threat that never really materialized because the United States applied the full might of its military capabilities and defeated the enemy, we inarguably have not gone nearly far enough in dealing with an enemy who presents more of a domestic terrorist threat than an international military threat.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261060/fdr-halted-german-japanese-naturalization-after-daniel-greenfield
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 03:35:31 pm by rangerrebew »

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
What precisely does it mean to go all out to win a war?

During the few short years of WWII, approximately 16 million persons in  the USA donned military uniforms. That was about 10 percent of the population.

If we did that today, it would mean about 31 million in uniform, not the mere 2.2 million that we have including reservists.

Some other measurements: From start to end, WWII was less than 4 years, whereas the time since 9/11/2001 has now reached 14 years.

And some final measurements: We won WWII because we went all out, placed guns before butter, but we are losing the War on Terror, because we think we should be able to win in a manner that isolates most Americans from any impact, need to serve and sacrifice etc.

Once defeated, we screened every person for possible dangerous connections. And we stayed and stayed and occupied them. We left little to chance, instead of being hot-to-trot home with a job half done.



"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,567
The actual reality is that the United States began relocating "enemy aliens" in the West Coast, which meant Germans, Japanese and Italians who were not United States citizens. Race wasn't the issue.

Ah, the author of this article tried to slip one past us. The actual reality is that the United States began relocating American citizens of German, Japanese and Italian descent as well. 

Why there is such a defense of one of the most disgusting chapters of American history--which Ronald Reagan condemned as have most sane people--on this forum is surprising.

I guess it's the coarsening brought on by Donald Trump. Dragging people into the gutter is a hallmark of Donald Trump.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 04:52:55 pm by sinkspur »
Roy Moore's "spiritual warfare" is driving past a junior high without stopping.

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
If your main objective is to win a very difficult war, you may have one essential thing needed to be done.

But out of three or five main things, you may not know which one is the essential thing. In WWII we made the strategic decision, to do all five since we didn't know which one was the most vital.

Internment in hindsight was probably not essential, but we cannot look back and find fault. It reflects the pure survival instinct, and single-mindedness put on winning, for winning was survival.

Most people today do not understand that, so they do retrospectives on supposed faults.

Fourteen years into the War on Terror, I am not confident in the decision making of our leaders, or the mental state of our citizenry.
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,567
If your main objective is to win a very difficult war, you may have one essential thing needed to be done.

But out of three or five main things, you may not know which one is the essential thing. In WWII we made the strategic decision, to do all five since we didn't know which one was the most vital.

Internment in hindsight was probably not essential, but we cannot look back and find fault. It reflects the pure survival instinct, and single-mindedness put on winning, for winning was survival.

Most people today do not understand that, so they do retrospectives on supposed faults.

Fourteen years into the War on Terror, I am not confident in the decision making of our leaders, or the mental state of our citizenry.

Oh, for God's sake.  Putting American citizens in internment camps because of their heritage?  This was the same FDR who TURNED BACK a ship full of Jews looking to dock in New York, condemning them to certain death.

Sorry, but we should have known better then.  We damned sure know better now.
Roy Moore's "spiritual warfare" is driving past a junior high without stopping.

Offline Scottftlc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,799
  • Gender: Male
  • Certified free of TDS
If your main objective is to win a very difficult war, you may have one essential thing needed to be done.

But out of three or five main things, you may not know which one is the essential thing. In WWII we made the strategic decision, to do all five since we didn't know which one was the most vital.

Internment in hindsight was probably not essential, but we cannot look back and find fault. It reflects the pure survival instinct, and single-mindedness put on winning, for winning was survival.

Most people today do not understand that, so they do retrospectives on supposed faults.

Fourteen years into the War on Terror, I am not confident in the decision making of our leaders, or the mental state of our citizenry.

I agree with you that finding fault in retrospect is not helpful at all. I do not blame the leaders or people (this was a widely supported policy) of the day for the actions they felt they needed to take in an existential crisis.  They didn't have the luxury of being able to make the call in retrospect.  Looking back on it from the luxury of the future and victory, it does very much appear that internment did not serve  any significant purpose whatsoever...did not even serve an insignificant purpose.  Even though I would not criticize decisions made then, that experience should inform our decisions today...even though we face a different and uncertain enemy in this conflict. However, we also face the same basic condition today: we do not know what tomorrow holds.  We do not know if the terror attacks will be largely limited and really have no significant effect whatsoever on our nation (certainly that is a possibility), or conversely, if in a month there will be a chemical weapon or dirty bomb set off in a major city (the other extreme).  We have information that can help us decide the proper road to take but the one thing San Bernardino should show us is that our information and knowledge is limited.  George W. Bush found this out in a very significant way.
Well, George Lewis told the Englishman, the Italian and the Jew
You can't open your mind, boys, to every conceivable point of view

...Bob Dylan

Offline NavyCanDo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,514
  • Gender: Male
I have stopped wondering how someday when the Antichrist  makes his appearance on the world stage, how he would convince billions to receive his mark. I am convinced now that for a false sense of security we would gladly stand in line for it with a me first attitude.
 I read Michelle’s Malkin’s  book, In Defense of Internment and even attended a lecture given by her on the subject.    FDR was wrong to do it. It was and still is a terrible scar on America.  Malkin and anyone else suggesting we should do it again is even more wrong,  because they choose to ignore the past, and pretend that  FDR’s neo-fascist regime never existed.
A nation that turns away from prayer will ultimately find itself in desperate need of it. :Jonathan Cahn

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,932
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
truth_seeker wrote above:
"Fourteen years into the War on Terror, I am not confident in the decision making of our leaders, or the mental state of our citizenry."

Which is why, for more than a dozen years, I've been asking:
Who's winning?

And of late I've added to that:
Who won?

Online Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80,568

Internment in hindsight was probably not essential, but we cannot look back and find fault. It reflects the pure survival instinct, and single-mindedness put on winning, for winning was survival.  Most people today do not understand that, so they do retrospectives on supposed faults.

 goopo    :hands:

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 386,150
  • Let's Go Brandon!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/12/09/trump_s_nutty_proposal_is_already_the_law_of_the_land_and_was_used_by_jimmy_carter_during_the_hostage_crisis


Trump's "Nutty" Proposal Is Already the Law of the Land -- and Was Used by Jimmy Carter During the Hostage Crisis
December 09, 2015
Listen to it Button

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens.  This law was written in 1952.  It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.

"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, the president 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."

Over here, everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land.  And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did more.  He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported a ton of 'em.

There is precedent for everything Donald Trump has said he wants to do.  And if you listen to the wizards of smart in this country and our political establishment, you will think that this stuff is just unheard of, it's almost unspeakable, it's just indecent.  Here we have in the establishment the reputed best and brightest, the smartest. We're not even qualified to be in their company no less.  And they're dunces on this.

In November the 1979 United States attorney general had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office.  Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979.  When this law, inadmissible aliens I just read to you, which I'm gonna be reading a lot to you today to the point you're gonna get tired of hearing it, but you won't forget it.

This law was passed in 1952.  Do you know what was going on in 1952, among other things?  There was no immigration in 1952.  It was shut down.  Immigration was shut down 1924 to 1965.  And why did we have this?  What was the need for this in 1952?  Oh, yeah, we had rampant illegal immigration. I'm talking about we suspended legal immigration from 1924 to 1965, but we were being overrun in 1952 like we always are.  We're the last great hope of the world.  That law was written to allow the president to keep undesirables out and to kick undesirables out.  There's no mystery.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I've got to remind you of something here, folks.  The Jimmy Carter stuff that I just told you about, all of these statements that Jimmy Carter made were made in public, and the announcements that he made that he was gonna send Iranians home, Iranian students home, that they had to report to immigration, they had to confirm they were here legally, those who weren't were sent back. They put a moratorium on all Iranians being allowed in the country back in 1979.

Carter did that publicly.  He announced it in public, and he announced it proudly.  Cookie has been scouring our archives and all of the other archives that are out there to try to find Carter audio.  But she can't.  And the reason is, the networks are not digging it up and playing it for anybody.  The networks have it, is the point.  There is video of Jimmy Carter making these announcements.  ABC, CBS, NBC, the odds are, have video of Jimmy Carter, just as they do of Reagan and Nixon and all the way back to Kennedy, when television started, they've got it.  They're just not interested in finding it. They're not interested in dredging it up and playing it for anybody.

These are not proclamations on a Friday night document dump where nobody was paying attention.  Carter proudly announced these maneuvers in public.  And the Drive-Bys, if they were doing their jobs, would be digging into their archives trying to find this.  But it's not in their interests, because right now they're all trying to say that what Trump has proposed is unconstitutional, it's ugly.  What Trump wants to do is dangerously ugly.  It ignores the law, it ignores the Constitution, and it feeds into our worst impulses.  It feeds into the worst aspects of who we are, just ugly.  In fact, it's not, it's been used before. It's been United States law since 1952.  Get back to that here in just a second.  I got another salient point to make about that, but I want to tell you about SurveyUSA.  Now, listen to this.

They just completed two surveys in cities near San Bernardino.  Their focus was on Trump's declaration that the United States should block any Muslims from entering the country.  In both of these cities near San Bernardino, the majority of adults polled supported Trump's proposal.  In fact, more than a third of adults in both of these cities strongly agreed with the idea that Muslims should be barred from entering the country.  In both cities, more people strongly agreed with the idea than strongly disagreed.  You combine the "strongly agree" and "somewhat agree," you combine that, and you are well into a majority of people who agree with Trump on this.

There was a partisan split, as you might expect, but even among Democrats, more than a quarter of them answering the poll strongly agreed with Trump's idea.  When have 25% of Democrats agreed with any Republican idea?  Can you recall?  When have 25% of Democrats ever agreed with any Republican proposal?  The Washington Post is the source for this.  The Washington Post reports the results of SurveyUSA's data, and the Washington Post notes that both of these towns heavily voted Obama in 2008 and 2012.  And a majority clearly now agree with Trump.

So here again, number 8 United States Code, inadmissible aliens.  "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," meaning he doesn't have to go back and get a new vote.  This law empowers him to stand up and do what Jimmy Carter did.  "He may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary --" until next week, until next year, until whenever he wants "-- 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."

Now, apparently our armchair constitutional scholars inside the Beltway think that United States code must be unconstitutional, 'cause they're running around saying it'd be unconstitutional what Trump is suggesting, ridiculous, you can't do that, it would be horrible.  It's right there in the United States statutory law.  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, written and passed by Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by a Democrat president.  Trump's proposal is legal because all of our immigration laws have always barred some groups of people based on their actions or ethnicity or nationality.

The very first US immigration law was the Chinese Exclusionary Act of 1882.  Then there was the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903, which we have discussed on this program.  But this has reminded me of something.  A couple of weeks ago Obama went on TV, as he is wont to do, and said (imitating Obama), "We do not have a religious test for people entering our country.  It doesn't matter what they believe.  We have freedom of religion in this country, whatever amendments since then.  And it's the law, it's our law, and we cannot ask people about their religion, and we certainly cannot use what they say as a reason to keep --"  And I was forced to remind everybody that not only can we, we must, because it is also American statutory law.  We must ask immigrants seeking asylum what their religious beliefs are.  We have done it.  We continue to do it.  Here's why.

originalThe primary reason most refugees give for seeking asylum is that they are fleeing religious persecution in whatever war torn place they're coming from.  During the interview process, it is required that we investigate that.  "What religion are you?" we ask.  They must tell us.  Based on what they tell us, we then examine whether or not there is indeed persecution of that religious belief in the place where the immigrant, the refugee, is coming from.  We dealt with this a couple of weeks ago.  Obama said you could never have a religious test for refugees, and we showed that a religious test is actually written into the statutes that govern refugees and asylum.

You know, the thing is here, folks, whether we're talking about the hard left or the progressive left or these RINO type Republicans and the commentariat, these people are actually making up a new Constitution and body of law as they go along based on how they feel.  So Trump comes along, they do not know about this law.  They obviously don't know it or they wouldn't be making fools of themselves saying what they're saying.  They don't know the law exists.  Trump proposes that we put a moratorium on Muslims entering the country, and they just have a conniption fit and they talk about how it's violating the Constitution and it makes a mockery of our system and it makes a mockery of our values and this is not who we are. They're just telling us how they feel, but they are certainly not knowledgeable of the Constitution.  They're making it up.

Tom Brokaw is one of many out there claiming what Trump wants to do so is unconstitutional, it's in violation of United States law, it would never stand up in court.  He doesn't know what he's talking about, but he certainly is letting us know how he feels about it and making up his own law and his own Constitution as he goes, as they are all doing.

So as a result the last thing that they want anybody to do is actually look at what the law of the United States is.  And they certainly don't want us looking at the history of this country because they certainly do not want us finding any precedent for anything that, in this case, Trump has suggested.  So now we have the soap opera, the daily soap opera that is the narrative of the day written by the media in Washington, and we've got the same thing about history.

originalWe have the daily narrative, the daily soap opera script about what US history is and what it isn't.  Every one of these people that are denouncing Trump are living in fantasy land, and they're doing so with an out-of-control ego and superiority and supremacy about themselves that they are untouchable intellectually. They're smarter than any of us. They know; we don't.  They are clueless about what they are talking about, and they are presented before us as the opinion leaders we should know, believe, love, and trust.

This is why -- again, my friends -- we wrote Rush Revere's Time-Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans.  It's to tell the truth of the American founding, truthful American history written for eight- to 11-year-olds. The latest book came out in October, Rush Revere and the Star-Spangled Banner.  This is one of the many reasons why that whole project exists and why we've taken it on, and why we're so grateful it's doing so well. 

END TRANSCRIPT
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline GAJohnnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,866
That has been one of the interesting things about all this. Watching all the supposed "brilliant" intellects in the media, politics and around the Internet, demonstrate just how superficial and shallow is their understanding of the US Constitution, US History and US Law. We just saw a mass media meltdown of politicians and media pundits, chanting slogans and sound bites that had no connection, at all,  to any thing real.

Offline katzenjammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,512
That has been one of the interesting things about all this. Watching all the supposed "brilliant" intellects in the media, politics and around the Internet, demonstrate just how superficial and shallow is their understanding of the US Constitution, US History and US Law. We just saw a mass media meltdown of politicians and media pundits, chanting slogans and sound bites that had no connection, at all,  to any thing real.

Oh it had a connection to something "real."  Trump's policy announcement began the process of shining a bright light on that which they wish to keep hidden.  Hence their collective outrage from across the globe.  (Remember, they are not stoopid and ignorant.)

rangerrebew

  • Guest


Trump's "Nutty" Proposal Is Already the Law of the Land -- and Was Used by Jimmy Carter During the Hostage Crisis
 

I'm sure either Nazi Pelosi or Debbie Wasserman Schultz must have denied this bit of history by now.  Why not, they deny everything else that doesn't fit their agendas.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male

Trump's critics remind me of this quote:

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz shares with his students a strategy for successfully defending cases. If the facts are on your side, Dershowitz says, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.

 ^-^

I hear a lot of table pounding from the anti-Trump side.