This is the best response they could come up with? "We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display, and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer’s presence and perspectives."

Protest the presence and perspectives of someone they disagree with? Even peacefully? Wow. Universities -- Berkeley in particular -- used to champion the free flow of diverse opinions. I don't know if that's what President Trump had in mind but it's my idea of making America great again.

---

One point of clarification, everyone, especially the lamestream media, keep referring to the Executive Order on Immigration as a ban. Not as a temporary halt. It would be easily fixed by a new Order temporarily halting all immigration until the vetting system can be vetted. No Muslims, No Christians, No Agnostics, No Atheists, No Rosicrucians.............No ANYBODY for 90 days.

("We're sorry folks, the US is closed for repairs. We'll reopen as soon as we get the gate fixed.")

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

One point of clarification, everyone, especially the lamestream media, keep referring to the Executive Order on Immigration as a ban. Not as a temporary halt. It would be easily fixed by a new Order temporarily halting all immigration until the vetting system can be vetted. No Muslims, No Christians, No Agnostics, No Atheists, No Rosicrucians.............No ANYBODY for 90 days.

("We're sorry folks, the US is closed for repairs. We'll reopen as soon as we get the gate fixed.")

Great point, JaundicedEye. I hope you don't mind that I put that on my FB page, giving you credit, of course.

---

...another terrorist incident here in the USA. If one DOES happen, Trump would gain some amount of political capital by saying (correctly) that HE tried to prevent it, but his political opponents stopped him.

SHHHHH! Don't give that administration any ideas!

---

#resist

One point of clarification, everyone, especially the lamestream media, keep referring to the Executive Order on Immigration as a ban. Not as a temporary halt...

When POTUS starts out by calling it a 'ban'- how can you fault the media for calling it a 'ban'- Trump is the source of truth in this country now after all.

---

#resist

I hope you don't mind that I put that on my FB page, giving you credit, of course.

Please feel free to quote anything I post, my intellectual property is 'shareware'.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

One point of clarification, everyone, especially the lamestream media, keep referring to the Executive Order on Immigration as a ban. Not as a temporary halt...

When POTUS starts out by calling it a 'ban'- how can you fault the media for calling it a 'ban'- Trump is the source of truth in this country now after all.

It is a [total] ban on [all] Muslims. The reptile spokesperson said it was his campaign promise fulfilled.

The Constitution prohibits religious discrimination. So those of you who support it, support violating the Constitution.

Does it make you feel good to grab the Constitution by the ****** and rape it? Does that make you feel like a real man?

---

...another terrorist incident here in the USA. If one DOES happen, Trump would gain some amount of political capital by saying (correctly) that HE tried to prevent it, but his political opponents stopped him.

SHHHHH! Don't give that administration any ideas!

Ya mean that someone like me can see things a certain way that would NEVER have occured to a bunch of businessmen and political hacks? You are giving me a LOT of credit there...

But, one thing is certain... As much as I despise the Trumphole, he has done something that very FEW Presidents have done. At least the Trumphole, within the first week of his term, did what he could to keep the GREAT majority of his campaign promises. As far as what has been overturned (such as the immigration schizz), he can say that "I tried, but 'THEY' would not let me".

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

If the intent was to ban Muslims why are only 17% of them covered by it? Why is it only countries Obama identified as terror risks? He must be a bigot too.

---

WP - Trump administration won’t appeal ruling against immigration order to the Supreme Court, says senior White House official

The Trump administration can wage a legal battle in the lower courts to address more squarely whether the president's immigration directive violates the Constitution. The White House is also mulling whether to rewrite the executive order. No matter what, the administration faces a difficult fight to restore the ban.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

It's very easy, to those understanding our judicial system, to restore Trumps decision.

Trump just goes to a friendly court. Who allows his order.

What is the process that can get the case moved?

Then, if there is a 4/4 SCOTUS decision. Trump's order is allowed.

USA Judicial System 101.

BTW: Trump will get his way. One legal way, or another. Why is that so difficult to understand.

Presumably that can only happen, if he withdraws this EO and writes a new one, which hopefully will go through the normal checks and procedures, before being issued. If that happens, then the lawyers reviewing the new EO before it is issued will have noted the comments from the 9th district and either addressed them, by releasing the new intelligence that requires a new set of immigration rules or it will be a very watered down EO.

Well, that is EXACTLY what a large number of people in Congress and the Media have been telling him to do...

But there is another way to look at things...

*He* (Trump) fulfilled his campaign promise by issuing the order that got stayed by the 9th circuit. The first thing I thought of when Trump decided to not pursue the matter further in the courts was that he would just sit and wait on another terrorist incident here in the USA. If one DOES happen, Trump would gain some amount of political capital by saying (correctly) that HE tried to prevent it, but his political opponents stopped him.

Fulfilling his campaign promise by issuing the order so quickly, because he believes anything he orders will be done immediately without question, is the very reason this EO got questioned in many courts, not just those in the 9th circuit.
If Trump and his cronies, had gone through the normal procedures and consulted Congress, who would have brought the State Department and Homeland Security into the process, before issuing the EO. Then Trump would have had a legally acceptable EO and he might have learnt something about the limits of his powers in private.

---

If the intent was to ban Muslims why are only 17% of them covered by it?

Because Trump has business interests in the other highly Muslim countries.

Why is it only countries Obama identified as terror risks? He must be a bigot too.

Obama never closed the borders to those people, nor did he prevent visa holders from re-entering the country.

---

#resist

If the intent was to ban Muslims why are only 17% of them covered by it?

Because Trump has business interests in the other highly Muslim countries.

Watch it with those non-alternative facts. They could get you charged with treason.

---

Obama never closed the borders to those people, nor did he prevent visa holders from re-entering the country.

When obama banned all Iraqi refugees for 6 Months in 2011 – liberals said *nothing*.

Well actually, Obama did NOT ban all Iraqi's from entering the US in 2011.

When investigating the two Iraqis in the "Bowling Green" affair, it was found that one of them had left his finger prints on a roadside bomb in Iraq. The FBI found that their database in the US wasn't integrated with the database in Iraq.
Obama ordered that all recent Iraqi immigrants be re-vetted and all new applicants had to also go though this new vetting. The effect was to stop and slow down the arrival of Iraqi immigrants. Not ban them.

Do us all a favour and stop reading Breitbart and fake news sites.

According to congressional testimony given in September 2011 by then–Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, all of these admitted refugees were “revetted against all of the DHS databases, all of the NCTC [National Counter Terrorism Center] databases and the Department of Defense’s biometric databases.” Going forward, Napolitano explained, new Iraqi refugees who wanted to enter the United States would be subjected to the same scrutiny.

Getting all of this in place was extremely time-consuming and labor-intensive, and the rate of Iraqi refugee entry into the United States slowed dramatically for the six months it took to finish the review.

---

If the intent was to ban Muslims why are only 17% of them covered by it? Why is it only countries Obama identified as terror risks? He must be a bigot too.

17% of all Muslims anywhere or 17% of Muslims that would try to come to the U.S.A.?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

If the intent was to ban Muslims why are only 17% of them covered by it?

Because Trump has business interests in the other highly Muslim countries.

Why is it only countries Obama identified as terror risks? He must be a bigot too.

Obama never closed the borders to those people, nor did he prevent visa holders from re-entering the country.

1) Trump has business interests in the following countries (other than the US)
Istanbul, Turkey, Panama City, Panama, Seoul, South Korea, Toronto, Canada, Makati, Phillipines, India, Punta del Este, Uruguay, Vancouver, BC, Aberdeen, Scotland, Doonbeg, Ireland and Dubai, UAE.

So maybe your theory could explain why Turkey and the United Arab Emirates are not on the Executive Order, but what about Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbjan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brunel, Burkina Faso, Chad, Cocos Islands, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Mali, Mayotte, Morocco, Niger, Pakastan, Palestinian Territories, Qator, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uzbekistan and Western Sahara? That argument falls a bit short.

2) In 2015 Congress passed the  Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. It is currently the law of the land. It tightened the rules for people from Iraq, Syria, Iran and Sudan if they had visited those countries or were dual citizens of those countries. Specifically, it required an in-person interview for a visa if a person had traveled there after March 2011. In 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia and Yemen to the list of troublesome travel areas, bringing the total to 7, but also said that it would not apply the restrictions to dual nationals of those countries. So, the list was created by Congress, passed into law and expanded by Obama to include all seven of the countries targeted by the president's EO -- and it includes US citizens who have dual citizenship.

To the best of my knowledge Obama had no business interests in the Muslim countries not named, either. Funny how it's now a right-wing conspiracy driven by business interests.

---

Obama never closed the borders to those people, nor did he prevent visa holders from re-entering the country.

When obama banned all Iraqi refugees for 6 Months in 2011 – liberals said *nothing*.

Cause we figured you'd be happy about it.

---

#resist

Definition of Democracy

Could this be the main reason why all the tears over Trump in power?

Democracy at the tipping point

"Some have criticized the image on the cover of this week's DER SPIEGEL, but the symbol it depicts is a serious one: the very real threat that President Donald Trump poses to liberal democracy."

So is the threat to Democracy itself or just liberal democracy?

So is the threat to Democracy itself or just liberal democracy?

First ask Der Spigel what they mean by liberal democracy? Are they using a German definition of liberal?

---