Mr. President, Declassify Documents on Russia Collusion Now

The Spectator, by R. Emmett Tyrrel, Jr. July 18, 2018:

Now that FBI agent Peter Strzok has appeared before the Congress and told us nothing that we did not know, it is time for President Donald Trump to act. Strzok looked like a cocky crook testifying to Congress about a failed con job. His appearance was utterly astounding. He actually smirked at the assembled elected officials of government. He smirked from morning until late in the afternoon when the Congress finally adjourned, though admittedly by late in the afternoon the wind was pretty much out of his sails, and his smiling face most assuredly ached. He looked deflated, and if he was eager for anything it was for the exit and the arms of his FBI paramour Lisa Page.

His demeanor was not that of a stalwart FBI agent appearing before the Congress of the United States to inform the citizenry, but like that of John Gotti or one of the other hoods whom a better generation of FBI agents than Strzok’s once put behind bars.

At some point in the near future a reflective Congress might — in a bipartisan moment — investigate how the FBI became a tool of elitist interests in our nation’s capital. Then too the Congress could offer suggestions as to what can be done to repair the damage. For federal law enforcement to become so flagrantly political is genuinely alarming.

I think President Trump has subtly brought the left and the right in this country together, at least on one point. The time has come for the citizenry to see all the documents held by the government in the so-called Russian collusion scandal. Was there collusion? Who was involved? The President has it in his power to declassify the documents. Use your faithful weapon, Mr. President, your trusty black felt pen. Sign the declassifying order now.
Pressure is building from both ends of the spectrum. Last weekend the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal called for declassifying the documents. Strzok did tell his intrepid inquisitor, Congressman Jim Jordan, that over at the Justice Department one Bruce Ohr did serve as the quiet conveyor of opposition research from the Clinton front group Fusion GPS to the FBI. Oh yes, and Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion and, by the way, Ohr and perhaps a dozen others involved in this Camorra to discredit Trump go back years, many to their college days as young socialists at Cambridge and select American universities. That revelation means that as the Journal pointed out, “… Fusion, an outfit on the payroll of the Clinton campaign, had a messenger on the government payroll to deliver its anti-Trump documents to the FBI.” Confirming that, “the FBI relied on politically motivated sources as part of its probe, even as Mr. Strzok insists he showed no political bias….” Strzok is even more brazen than members of the Cosa Nostra.

Specifically the Journal called for the release of FISA applications. They will show how heavily the FBI relied on Christopher Steele’s dirty dossier. They will also show how candid the Justice Department and the FBI were in seeking the FISA subpoenas from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Journal also called for release of documents related to the Woods procedures, which will show how the FBI verified evidence it used to justify eavesdropping on the Trump campaign. There are also documents called 302s and 1023s, documents that would show how the FBI dealt with Steele, Fusion GPS, and other informants, for instance Dan Jones and my old friend Stef Halper.

I have my own set of questions about the Russian collusion investigation that might be answered if the President orders the above documents declassified. Working with my indefatigable chief investigator, George Neumayr, here are a few of the questions that we have prepared once President Trump has declassified the documents.

  • The President should declassify all communications between Strzok and John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s director of CIA. Their shared hatred for Trump lies at the root of the Obama administration’s decision to spy on the Trump campaign. Declassify the documents and let the questioning begin.
  • He should also declassify any documents that shed light on Brennan’s “working group at Langley.” When did the group begin its work? Who participated?
  • He should declassify any documents that shed light on the internal discussions or debates about whether or not to open up a probe of the Trump campaign: Did any FBI officials dissent from the decision? If so, who are the officials?
  • He should declassify any documents related to the Brennan-generated leak to then Senator Harry Reid. My guess is that Brennan has a lot of questions to answer as this week’s tweets suggest.

Strzok’s appearance before the Congress was very amusing. Now it is time to come up with answers to the question of Russian collusion or collusion by anyone else in the 2016 election. Mr. President, you can do it.

***

“They are prosecuting people on a partisan basis, and that, is the beginning of tyranny”

***

Also see:

Diplomacy 101 Versus Politics Writ Small

Photo credit: Chris McGrath/Getty Images

American Greatness, by Angelo Codevilla, July 17, 2018:

The high professional quality of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin’s performance at their Monday press conference in Helsinki contrasts sharply with the obloquy by which the bipartisan U.S. ruling class showcases its willful incompetence.

Though I voted for Trump, I’ve never been a fan of his and I am not one now. But, having taught diplomacy for many years, I would choose the Trump-Putin press conference as an exemplar of how these things should be done. Both spoke with the frankness and specificity of serious business. This performance rates an A+.

Both presidents started with the basic truth.

Putin: The Cold War is ancient history. Nobody in Russia (putting himself in this category) wants that kind of enmity again. It is best for Russia, for America, and for everybody else if the two find areas of agreement or forbearance.

Trump: Relations between the globe’s major nuclear powers have never been this bad—especially since some Americans are exacerbating existing international differences for domestic partisan gain. For the sake of peace and adjustment of differences where those exist and adjustment is possible, Trump is willing to pay a political cost to improve those relations (if, indeed further enraging his enemies is a cost rather than a benefit).

In short, this was a classic statement of diplomatic positions and a drawing of spheres of influence.

Flexibility and Inflexibility 
As Putin listed his agenda, he showed that today’s Russia is a status quo power, whose primary objective is stability. Having come to power over a country diminished and dispirited, he sought to recover as much as possible of what Russia had lost in the Soviet break-up. He forcibly took back parts of Georgia and Ukraine. In doing so, he pushed against open doors.

Today, no other doors are open. Now being ahead, he wants to stop the game. He knows that this is possible because nobody is going to wage or even risk war against Russia to try disgorging Abkhazia and Crimea. He wants Trump to acknowledge that. Warning against extending NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, he signaled that all else is negotiable.

He also has rebuilt Russia’s military and wants to protect its edge by persuading Trump to keep U.S. missile defense in its current dysfunctional mode. This is an inflexible demand that deserves an equally inflexible rejection. Trump had already delivered it by ordering the establishment of the U.S. Space Force.

By securing his naval and air bases in Syria, Putin succeeded in returning Russia to warm-water sea power. That required backing the Shia side in its intra-Muslim war against the Sunni in Syria, while the United States backed the other side. Today Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey are much as Putin wants them. He wants Trump’s acknowledgment of this status. Russia continues to argue to Americans that both countries have suffered far more from Sunni terrorism—ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood—than from the Shia version.

No Desire for War over Israel, Eastern Europe
The two made clear that their commitment to stability in the Middle East outweighs support for either side, and signaled wider cooperation, especially with on military matters.

Trump, leaving no doubt that America’s commitment to Israel’s security is absolute, faced Putin with the choice of partnering with America in restraining Iran or of being drawn into an Israeli-American war against an Iran with whose forces Russia’s are interwoven. Putin, for his part, seemed to concur with Trump’s priority. That along tripartite security consultations with Israel is likely to cool Iran and Hezbollah’s ardor for war.

Trump signaled that America’s interest in Eastern Europe lies in re-establishing peace there, and in safeguarding the independence of its states. Poland and the Baltic States are not just NATO members, but also close to the American people’s hearts. By stressing peace, he made clear that America does not intend to make its defensive commitments there the occasion for a war at or beyond the extreme reach of American power.

Collusion and the Known Facts
Though Russia has backed North Korea in the past, Putin signaled that he is not happy with its acquisition of a modern nuclear force that is effectively China’s pawn. He seemed to promise pressure on North Korea to denuclearize—something that would displease China. Though that was a minor part of both sides’ press conference, it may well signal both sides’ recognition of their mutual interest in not letting China become the Western Pacific’s overlord. Such an understanding would be no minor achievement.

The American ruling class’s attribution of the 2016 election to Trump-Putin collusion, which has characterized U.S.-Russia relations for two years, provided the press conference’s fireworks. Both denied any such thing and insisted there was no evidence of it. In response to a question about whether Putin would make available the 12 Russian state intelligence employees indicted for interference in that election to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Putin pointed to the existence of a treaty of cooperation on criminal matters and promised Mueller that access to the accused through the treaty.

This led to the final flourish. The Associated Press reporter demanded that Trump state whether he believes the opinions of U.S. intelligence leaders or those of Putin. It would be healthy for America were it to digest Trump’s answer: The truth about the charge that Russia stole the contents of the Democratic National Committee’s computer server is not to be found in the opinions of any persons whatever. The truth can be discovered only by examining the server in question—assuming it has not been tampered with since the alleged event. But, said Trump emphatically, those making the accusations against Russia have refused to let the server be examined by U.S. intelligence or by any independent experts. What is the point of accusations coupled with refusal of access to the facts of the matter?

The classic texts of diplomatic practice teach that diplomacy advances the cause of peace and order only to the extent that its practitioners avoid contentious opinions and stick to demonstrable facts.

The AP reporter, who should be ashamed, is beyond shame. Then again, so are the ruling class representatives who have redoubled their animus against Trump. Cheap partisanship is not all that harmful. It is the transfer of domestic partisan animus to international affairs, however, that has the potential to start wars.

Not so long ago, American school kids had to read George Washington’s farewell address, which warned in the most emphatic terms at his command to avoid that sort of thing for the sake of peace with other nations as well as among ourselves.

What that ignorant “journalist” was demanding of Trump—precisely what the credentialed experts should know better than to have demanded—was that the president of the United States scream at the president of Russia for all his evils. Competitive “virtue signaling” has become the way of political life in America. To the extent that it bleeds into America’s foreign policy, we are all in big trouble.

***

***

Also see:

Boris Johnson Resigns in Disgust Over Prime Minister May’s Insufferable Brexit Failure and Acquiescence To EU Globalism….

The Last Refuge, by Sundance, July 9, 2018:

There is trouble ahead for Great Britain as the leaders of the British exit from the European Union (Brexit) quit in disgust over Prime Minister Theresa May’s abhorrent acquiescence to multinational corporations and the EU globalists.  British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson quit today.

Western Media are quick to come to the defense of Prime Minister May due to their financial and ideological alignment with the multinational media organizations and corporations who pull the strings.

EU Council President Donald Tusk quickly raises the idea that Brexit might be called off. “Politicians come and go but the problems they have created for people remain,” he tweeted.  Ultimately, this has been the goal of the multinationals’ all along.  The EU constructed the Brexit negotiations around the basic premise there would be no substantive change to the relationship.  Prime Minister May went along with the corrupocrat scheme, and now the primary voices behind the Brexit negotiation have quit.

(Via Reuters) […]  May’s office said it had accepted Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s resignation on Monday, hours after Brexit minister David Davis, in charge of exit negotiations with the bloc, quit on Sunday night.

The two departures shatter May’s own proclamation of cabinet unity last Friday, when she believed she had, after two years of wrangling, secured agreement on Britain’s biggest foreign and trading policy shift in almost half a century.  (read more)

As an outcome, the UniParty British Parliament (Labour and Conservatives) are thrilled as the voices of the British people are dismissed.  Elitism within the ‘we know better’ crowd rears its ugly head once again.

There’s a familiarity, an almost parallel construct, taking place within the United States congress over international trade negotiations etc.   The U.S. UniParty, filled with politicians who are purchased by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street and the multinationals, are fighting against President Trump the same way the U.K. politicians are fighting against the British people.

American ‘Deplorables’ find common cause and understanding with the British ‘commoners’; both groups fighting against a political class that sees themselves as better than the group they are supposed to represent.   Sickening elitism and globalism on display in both countries.  Underpinning it all is the root of all evil, money.

The timing is interesting.  U.S. President Trump is scheduled to arrive in the U.K on Thursday.  President Trump fully supports the sovereign right of the British people to get out of the European Union; and he supports Brexit.  Conversely Prime Minister Theresa May is aligned with the ruling class against the majority will of her constituents.  There is a prime opportunity for President Trump to speak in support of Brexit and dispatch the elitist sensibilities of the British ruling class.

No doubt the politicians within the U.K. are concerned about the optics of a U.S. President Trump outlining freedom and the voice of the people while the elite ruling class are forced to listen….. This could get very interesting.

***

***

***

***

Also see:

Iran is unsteady on the inside — the US should squeeze from the outside

Getty Images

The Hill, by Peter Huessy, July 5, 2018:

Americans are not eager to find more dragons to slay around the world. Thus, the military counter-terror effort against Iranian activity in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq will ultimately be largely a local affair with diminished U.S. support.

However, whatever deterrent forces we continue to deploy, such as our much-improved missile defenses and naval presence in the Persian Gulf region, the United States and our allies need to use whatever political, economic, diplomatic and commercial capabilities we have to help the people of Iran take the regime down themselves.

Can such a policy succeed? The signs are encouragingPresident Trumphas put together an emerging coalition to counter Iran that includes Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi coalition is now moving fast to take down the Iranian-financed and armed Houthis in Yemen; ISIS has been largely destroyed by U.S. and allied forces; and Israel and the U.S. have taken out key Iranian military targets in Syria.

Correlation of forces against Iran?

What the Soviets in the 1970’s called the “correlation of forces” is moving against Iran. That is due in significant part to the changed policies of the new American administration.

The Iranian currency is collapsingcapital flight is growing; the middle class is rebelling, as are minorities; and government repression has accelerated including beatings, jailing, extrajudicial executions, and arbitrary arrests.

Many thousands of Iranians are protesting in multiple cities and townships against regime-caused hardships, and the mullahs can only promise them “severe punishment.”

Current U.S. sanctions have intimidated numerous multinationals from investing in Iran. As a result, the oil and gas sector, the keystone of the entire Iranian economy, is suffering. We could, as we have previouslydone, impose serious penalties against European banks for facilitating illicit Iran-related financial activities.

A new policy and plan

What then should be our plan?

First, of critical importance, Iran should be removed from access to SWIFT, (The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications), so it cannot sell and purchase oil. SWIFT’s corporate rules prohibit its users from engaging in “conduct which is not in line with generally accepted business conduct principles” and in 2012 the European Union took exactly such action (but it was later rescinded in 2015).

Second, Iran’s oil exports should then be effectively embargoed, with concomitant steps taken by the U.S. and its allies to step up alternative oil production including ANWR and the Keystone pipeline.

Third, Iran should be removed from international forums and its embassies shuttered, even as we mount a campaign of public diplomacy to fully support the Iranian people in their struggle to be free.

Fourth, a fully-funded program of stopping desertification and enhancing water supplies for the people of a new Iran should be planned by America and its allies. Drastic water shortages are a serious threat to millions of Iranians.

Fifth, a cyber-campaign should be implemented against Iran’s nuclear weapons program and rocket manufacturing facilities.

Sixth, the U.S. should announce that if Iranian “fast attack” boats and drones resume harassing American naval vessels, the watchwords should be “sink ‘em”.

Seventh, our border security should be stepped up to ensure threats do not enter America.

Eighth, and most important, besides a public diplomacy campaign supporting Iranian dissidents, the U.S. should help the protesters in the street. Strike funds and encrypted phones should be supplied in a fashion similar to America’s support of Poland’s Solidarity movement during the Reagan administration.

Hard Choices

Iran is no true democracy; there are no moderates in power; Iran seeks no accommodation with the West, nor has the regime given up its quest for nuclear weapons.

In light of these truths, the inherited Iran policy must be junked. Unfortunately, changing U.S. Iran policy will not be easy. Critics of such a new administration policy say that proposing regime behavior change is a pipe dream and simply a demand that Iran “give up.” Others warn the “regime change evangelists” are back in the White House.

Non-intervention may sound attractive and it is a tempting path to follow. But what if Iran succeeded in its goal of becoming the hegemon of the Middle East, filling the vacuum that would be created by our complete withdrawal?

Such a power position would make Iran a key player of the production and sale of what some estimate to be 70 percent of the world’s hydrocarbons — a chief component of petroleum and natural gas — and would consequently give the mullahs huge leverage over the economies of all industrialized nations.

The choice before America and her allies is simple. Either help the people of Iran end the reign of the mullahs, or see a hegemon arise in the Middle East that is opposed to all our collective interests and security.

Peter Huessy is the director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies of the Air Force Association. He has been a guest professor on Nuclear Policy and Congressional Relations at the U.S. Naval Academy since 2011. Previously, Huessy was a senior defense fellow at American Foreign Policy Council.

Germany’s Migrant Policy: Why Trump was Right

Gatestone Institute, by Vijeta Uniyal, 

  • According to the narrative peddled by the mainstream media, after a series of horrendous migrant crimes and string of deadly terrorist attacks perpetrated by newly-arrived Muslim migrants, towns and cities across Germany were reverting to some sort of idyllic harmony.
  • According to Germany’s 2017 crime statistics, more than 1,100 foreigners were charged with murder or manslaughter, as opposed to around 1,500 suspects holding German passports. Given that Germany was home to roughly 10 million foreigners as opposed to 70 million German nationals, these are staggering numbers.
  • “The number of homicides rose by 3.2%” and “the number of sexual assaults had risen as well,” the Süddeutsche Zeitung disclosed, while correctly maintaining that the crime report showed an overall drop of 9.6%.

US President Donald Trump attacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s migrant policy this week. The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition,” he tweeted on June 18. “Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!” he added.

President Trump’s comments come at a time when Merkel is facing the biggest crisis of her career. She is struggling to hold her government together, with the Bavarian Catholic party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), threatening to leave the governing coalition over immigration. The CSU wants the police to have the authority to turn away illegal migrants at the border, a move bitterly opposed by Merkel.

While Trump slammed Merkel’s handling of the migrant crisis during his presidential campaign, until now, he has refrained from publicly criticizing her over the issue.

US President Donald Trump attacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s migrant policy on June 18, writing, “Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!” Pictured: Trump and Merkel meet in Washington, DC, on April 27, 2018. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Predictably, the mainstream media were quick to criticize President Trump for his remarks.

“Trump falsely claimed that crime in Germany is on the rise,” wrote The New York Times.

The Washington Post ran a “fact-checking” story entitled, “Trump says crime in Germany is way up. German statistics show the opposite.”

“Statistics contradict Trump’s remarks,” German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported.

“Trump’s comments are certain to irk German ministers, especially as Europe’s largest economy recently reported the lowest crime figures in more than 25 years. The number of crimes fell almost 10 percent in 2017 over the previous year.”

CNNBBCVox and even the youth fashion magazine Teen Vogue published similar reports.

With major media outlets on both side of the Atlantic reciting the same talking points in unison, millions of viewers and readers across the globe could come to believe that the Trump had made a false claim while attacking Merkel’s open borders policy that let millions of migrants into Europe since the autumn of 2015.

According to the narrative peddled by the mainstream media, after a series of horrendous migrant crimes and string of deadly terrorist attacks perpetrated by newly arrived Muslim migrants, towns and cities across Germany were reverting to some sort of idyllic harmony.

All the media reports were based on the 2017 police crime statistics that registered a drop of almost 10% in the crime rate over the previous year. Speaking to reporters in May 2018, German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer cited the report to assert that “the number of crimes committed in Germany is the lowest since 1992.”

Let us examine that report closely.

On April 22, 2018, writing for the German newspaper Die Welt, Ansgar Graw challenged the much-quoted crime report in an article entitled, “The Reality Behind the New Statistics on Crime”:

“When all [categories of] crimes are taken into consideration, then the crime has certainly gone down (by 9.6%) over the previous year. In case of violent crimes — that particularly lead to fear — the picture is nuanced. There was, however, a slight improvement compared to 2016 (and as well as to 2011 or 2012). But in general terms, violent crimes subjected to high fluctuation are above the levels [recorded] between 2013 and 2015.”

Cases of murder. manslaughter, rape and sexual assault have risen measurably. In 2014, for example, a total of 180,955 acts of violence were reported, in previous year they were 188,946.

As Graw concludes, “the crime statistics drop only when compared to 2016, but have risen in comparison to the period before the refugee crisis.” Addressing the issue of migrant crime, he wrote that “the proportion of non-German suspects across the board, and particularly when it came to violent crimes, was disproportionately high.”

According to the 2017 crime statistics, more than 1,100 foreigners were charged with murder or manslaughter, as opposed to around 1,500 suspects holding German passports. The previous year’s statistics showed a similar correlation: 1,137 foreigners were charged with homicide-related crime, compared to 1,638 German suspects. These are staggering numbers given the fact that Germany was home to roughly 10 million foreigners as opposed to 70 million German nationals.

In an article meant as a rebuttal to President Trump’s tweets, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung on June 19, 2018 admitted that the police crime report of 2017 showed a rise in homicide and sexual assault across the country. The Süddeutsche Zeitung, while correctly maintaining that the crime report showed an overall drop of 9.6%, disclosed that, “The number of homicides rose by 3.2%” and “the number of sexual assaults had risen as well.”

On June 8, 2018, German public broadcaster Südwestrundfunk (SWR) admitted that there was a “correlation between refugee influx and rising crime.”

Concerning violent crimes, the 2017 government crime report found that the police charged 69,163 foreigners for such crimes compared to 112,346 Germans. In 2016, the report showed a ratio of 67,869 non-German, compared to 110,494 for German suspects.

There is nothing new about the mainstream media seizing an opportunity to ridicule and discredit the US President. However, the issue of mass migration into Europe is bigger than a fresh round of Trump-bashing or finding delicacies for the next news cycle. By shielding Merkel’s migrant policy from legitimate scrutiny and criticism, and hushing up a public debate, the mainstream media have become an accessory to the seriously flawed open-door migrant policy pushed by Merkel and the rest of European political elite.

Vijeta Uniyal, a journalist and news analyst, is based in Germany.

***

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

Fox News, By Bill Mears, June 26, 2018:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s controversial travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president’s executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy. It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory “Muslim ban” but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

Trump, reacting to the decision on Twitter, wrote: “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!”

At issue was whether the third and latest version of the administration’s policies affecting visitors from five majority Muslim nations – known as travel ban 3.0 – discriminates on the basis of nationality and religion, in the government’s issuance of immigrant visas.

CLICK TO READ THE DECISION

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the conservative majority opinion, wrote that the order was “squarely within the scope of presidential authority” under federal law.

“The sole prerequisite set forth in [federal law] is that the president find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here,” he wrote.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among the court’s four liberals that wrote a dissent.

“This repackaging does little to cleanse [the policy] of the appearance of discrimination that the president’s words have created,” she said. “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

She and Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading their dissents from the bench.

While the policy was upheld, the case was sent back to the lower courts, which were told to rely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive authority.

It was the first significant legal test so far of Trump’s policies and power and could lead to a precedent-setting expansion on the limits of presidential power, especially within the immigration context.

Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent months had ruled against the administration. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court last December concluded Trump’s proclamation, like the two previous executive orders, overstepped his powers to regulate the entry of immigrants and visitors.

But the justices had allowed the current restrictions to be enforced at the Justice Department’s request, at least until the case was fully litigated.

The Trump administration also seemed to enjoy a favorable reception before the court during arguments in April. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, during those April arguments, noted that of the 50 or so mostly Muslim majority countries, only five were on the current banned list.

The White House had framed the issue as a temporary move involving national security.

A coalition of groups in opposition called the order blatant religious discrimination, since the countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chad was recently removed from the list after the administration said that country had beefed up its information-sharing.

A major sticking point for the justices was navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

A 1952 federal law — the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence — historically gives the chief executive broad authority.

It reads in part: “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, 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.”

The administration strongly denies this is a “Muslim ban,” but federal judges across the country cited statements by then-presidential candidate Trump and his advisers, including a December 2015 campaign press release calling for such restrictions and citing “hatred” by “large segments of the Muslim population.”

The high court’s majority downplayed Trump’s campaign statements as a major factor in its decision.

“The issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements,” wrote Roberts. “It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”

Sixteen state leaders led by Texas were among a number of coalitions backing the Trump administration. But Hawaii officials, who filed the appeal contesting all of the president’s orders, said the president’s policies violate the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom:

“Any reasonable observer who heard the president’s campaign promises, read his thinly justified orders banning overwhelmingly Muslim populations, and observed his administration’s persistent statements linking the two, would view the order and each of its precursors as the fulfillment of the president’s promise to prohibit Muslim immigration to the United States.”

Trump’s first executive order was issued just a week after he took office, and was aimed at seven countries. It triggered chaos and protests across the U.S., as some travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and others detained at airports for hours. Trump modified the order after a federal appeals court refused to allow the ban to be enforced.

“This is not about religion– this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” the president said on Jan. 29, 2017.

The next version, unveiled weeks later, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen didn’t apply to those travelers who already had valid visas. It also got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics said the changes did not erase the legal problems with the ban.

When that second temporary travel ban expired in Sept. 24, it was replaced with Proclamation 9645 — what the administration said was a country-by-country assessment of security and cooperation with the U.S.

To Win This War Americans Must Know Sharia

Understanding the Threat, by Stephanie Ameiss, June 26, 2018:

U.S. warfighting doctrine states that to professionally analyze a threat, you begin with how the threat defines itself and why the threat states it is fighting you.

From Al Qaeda and the Islamic State to the 9/11 attackers to the Boston Marathon bombers and jihadis killed or captured in Europe and the United States, the Islamic enemy unanimously states they are “muslims waging jihad to establish an Islamic state (caliphate) under sharia (Islamic law).”

To date, the U.S. intelligence and military community has yet to do a professional analysis of our enemy.

They have failed to read, study, and teach sharia.

This is why we are losing the war.

Sharia is the blueprint for how the Global Islamic Movement is fighting the war and it is the thing which the enemy seeks to impose on the world.

They tell us sharia is their goal everyday. They hold up signs, put up billboards, and put it out on television and social media. They say it in open court, they scream it in public, and thousands of speeches by Islamic scholars and leaders can be seen at places like MEMRI where they are constantly and clearly calling for warfare against non-muslims (JIHAD) until the world is under the rule of sharia.

Therefore, the professional response by U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence professionals and leaders is to simply read Islamic law.

When a person does this they will quickly learn Al Qaeda and ISIS have never misquoted sharia to support their actions.

Crucifixion, beheading, stoning, rape, and other behaviors are all legal under sharia. But you have to read sharia to know it.

When you read sharia you will learn it is a capital crime for muslims to teach other muslims anything incorrect about Islam, and it is obligatory for muslims to lie to non-muslims when the goal is obligatory…like jihad.

Therefore, to be professional you must read authoritative books of Islamic law written by Islamic authorities for muslim audiences.

Reliance of the Traveller or The Islamic Law of Nations are a couple good places to start.

Understanding the Threat’s 3 day program for police, first responders, national guard, military, and others – “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Threat” – rocks people’s world because on Day 1 we lay out what sharia is, its authority in Islam, and what it says.

We use the very books and materials found in U.S. Islamic schools and mosques that muslims use to teach other muslims about Islam.

The reaction of the attendees of this training, including senior military and intelligence officials, as well as FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force agents and officers is always the same – they have never been taught the information, yet they believe it is critical to protecting their community.

Once this information is known, and professionals learn about the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in America, they put all of their experiences into perspective and can see the magnitude of the threat we face from the Islamic Movement.

Those educated about sharia and the jihadi network realize that when Islamic leaders make demands from TSA or police departments or from prisons or from local communities, they are not asking for “religious accommodations” they are demanding adherence to sharia.

Understanding the Threat is the only organization in America doing what we do.

Here are three things you can do to help grow the counter-jihad movement:

1. Use UTT resources to educate yourself and others on this threat.

2. Bring UTT’s 3-day “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Threat” to your area. Discuss it with your sheriff and police chief.

3. Consider for yourself or others UTT’s Train the Trainer program. This unique week-long program gives graduates the ability to teach others about the threat and defend the information from attacks from detractors.

For more information, please contact us at info@understandingthethreat.com.