What the hell has happened to my country, "The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave"?
We are so afraid of our own frickin' shadows that we let a President get away with this crap? Fact: Since 9/11--that's right, I went there, Mayor Giuliani--EVERY President has been obligated to suggest during his term, he has "kept America safe" from terrorist attacks.
The first administration to claim that since 9/11, by the way, was the first administration of U.S. President George W. Bush--who was, you'll recall, PRESIDENT during the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, in U.S. history. Even the mighty fortress, The Pentagon, was a victim of an attack.
Two weeks in, and the new President is trying to suggest "not my fault" if there are terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? Wha? Because the Judicial Branch--one of the three, co-equal branches of our government, just ONE of TWO "checks and balances" on each other branch, has seen fit to question the legality, and the Constitutional backing, of a vaguely worded, specious "Executive Order," written to appease supporters and be able to claim to have fulfilled campaign promises made before the candidate even had an inkling of the powers of the President, and no knowledge, apparently, of the powers of the checks-and-balances?
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is...a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
--Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion (of a six-justice Supreme Court) in Marbury v. Madison, 1803.
I have asked this question before. The Media needs to ask it, and keep asking it. Why NOT Saudi Arabia? Why NOT Egypt? Why NOT Chechnya? Why NOT Pakistan? As has become the norm for investigations since "Deep Throat" first uttered the motto to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein--"follow the money." And you may find an economic rationale for an on-its-face deliberately discriminatory (against Majority Muslim countries, i.e., against Muslims) order.
Emoluments clause my ass. And more to the point: to "protect the United States," my effing ass. How about starting to "protect the United States" by coming up with a policy for ending our continued military involvement in Iraq? In Syria? In Pakistan (where, technically, we're still conducting operations in a supposedly sovereign country)? In Yemen (same)? And then, threatening Mexico? It is not an indication of "bravery" to lock your door and arm yourself against home invasion. It IS a sign of bravery to fly your fricking' flag proudly, with you door wide open, offering to harbor the oppressed, the threatened, the disenfranchised, the people "yearning to breathe free."
I suspect since 9/11, too many people in this country have been holed up breathing their own C02 and not enough fresh, clean, clear oxygen from outside their bubble.
A free man is a brave man. A frightened man is a prisoner to his own cowardice. And a very scary man it is that thinks by frightening others, everyone will stay inside their locked doors and pray to be able to not one day die.
So, just so I have this straight: the logic is, if there are no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during the president's administration, he gets the credit for "keeping America safe." But if there ARE attacks, it is the Judicial Branch that "allowed" it to happen, by letting would-be bad hombres into the country, as opposed to stopping would-be bad hombres by law enforcement within the country?
In that case, I have one old journalist question (hint: there is NO correct answer) for the president, and anyone else backing this logic: Have you stopped beating your wife? (For those seeing this as a quite reasonable question: if the answer is "yes," it implies the person asked was beating his wife and has just now stopped. If the answer is "no," it suggests the person is still beating his wife. No where in the question is there room to deny any beating).