For the second time in so many months, another mentally deficient judge has issued a temporary restraining order on President Trump’s travel ban on several Muslim majority countries. And while it seems ‘mean’ or ‘unnecessarily harsh’ to call federal judges Derrick Watson, William Canby Jr., Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and James Robart ‘stupid’, ‘asinine’ or ‘so full of shit that they should wipe after opening their mouths to avoid a public health incident’, allow me the opportunity to explain why I came to such a factually accurate conclusion.
I came to that conclusion for 2 reasons. A) I said so, and B) the fundamental underpinning of all 3 decisions are based on a concept that I like to call ‘Selective Remembrance’. Selective Remembrance is an oft used device utilized by all manner of political and politically ‘correct’ types who like to selectively remember events that support a particular position or assertion that they’re plugging while conveniently forgetting other events that might call those original positions or assertions into question.
In these 3 decisions, all 5 judges frequently cited Trump’s calling for a Muslim travel ban (while he was on the presidential campaign trail) as their justification for why they’re halting the Trump administration’s travel ban. That is all that they selectively remember: that he called for a Muslim travel ban. Had they remembered the why of ‘why he wanted a Muslim travel ban’ in the first place, there wouldn’t be a discussion on the merits of the case as Trump’s words were a direct response to the Muslim refugee attacks in Europe and the Islamic Fundamentalist inspired attacks in America.
‘What else was selectively forgotten in these rulings?’, you might ask so you will allow me to further expound on the matter. To which I would respond with ‘A whole lot of other Important Facts; that’s what, monkey butt.’
Important Fact #1: The Muslim majority world consists of 49 countries. Only 7 of those countries made the final cut to be placed under the initial Trump Travel ban. Talk about being a tough competition to make the cut! They even wittled it down to 6 in the final round, making those ‘special roses’ even more special!
Important Fact #2: As I’ve mentioned before, those 7 countries represent 18% of the global population of Muslims, making the arguments made by the 5 Jerkoff Judges who claimed that Trump’s Travel ban was ‘motivated by religious intolerance’ to be completely, irrefutably Stupid. (Yes, this level of willful ignorance has earned that Capital ‘S’. It’s not only Stupid, it’s Super Stupid.) You can’t let ~80% of a group into your country and then be called ‘motivated by hatred’ of said group when you deny the other ~20% into your country for national security reasons. That’s got to be the most ineffective attempt at being a religious ‘bigot’ in history. I can’t even come up with an appropriate analogy for this level of incompetence in the whole Xenophobia department, that’s how bad it is.
Important Fact #3: Did I say Trump Travel ban? Whoops! I ‘misspoke’. The list of 7 countries in the initial ban, which got trimmed to 6 in the revised ban, was compiled by the Obama administration for future immigration bans based on National Security concerns. So, really, this isn’t about Trump’s opinions on the matter, as the list was compiled by the Obama group and recommended to Trump’s administration, making this even less about Trump’s positions and more about National Security.
Important Fact #4: For the courts to claim that ‘there’s no solid national security justification for instituting a travel ban’, I, mostly using a number of other sources, have compiled a few lists of great interest on the ‘National Security’ front that demolishes the judges’ lame-ass logic. I counted and verified (it’s not hard to do, go to Google, type in date, location, and the word ‘attack’ and voila!) 43 major attacks performed by Islamic extremists in Europe or Russia since the Twin Tower attacks of 2001, resulting in over 1,500 killed and over 5,700 injured.
(These are only a small collection of the Fundamentalist Islam-justified attacks throughout Europe since 9/11. I only selected out the ones that either had a high body count or were particularly heinous in the targeting of the victims. The full list of victims is far too long for this post but can be found here.)
I (again, actually, others) counted 12 Islamic fundamentalist directed or inspired attacks in the U.S. since 2009 and 7 such attacks in 2015 and 2016 alone.
Add to this the 10 large scale attacks that occurred in Europe during the two years leading up to this year’s election and you have a fairly sound justification in refusing entry to a particular group of individuals.
At this point, this is no longer an issue of ‘show me the evidence that this is a national security issue’, it’s more of a ‘I’m a self-blinding, petulant dumbass who is pretending not to see the obvious because my political buddies and I are still butthurt by the results of the election, so we’re going to hop on our publicly appointed political soapboxes to push our opinions and lame-ass emotional justifications instead of doing our job’ kind of cop-out.
Being forced to provide proof that the Sun rises in the East, that the Backstreet Boys were wayyy better than N’Sync, or that the U.S. has been/is being threatened by Fundamentalist Islamic militancy that spreads from identifiable locations in the Muslim world is purposefully playing at ignorance. We all know the preceding to be true and anyone arguing to the contrary is either playing childish semantic games, deliberately being a troll, or they are just dangerously ignorant of the world. Which makes this whole situation twice as awesome since these boneheads are in a position of authority that can greatly affect the safety of the entire country, as well as pervert the legal system. (Maybe they’re operating under the age-old advice of my evil twin who said, “if you’re going to f&ck up, you might as well f&ck up big!”)
And I’m not alone in my mockery of these Social Justice Jokers, as there appear to be a few individuals out there who still view the Judiciary as a ‘solemn and necessary position needed to vouchsafe the integrity of the Constitution and Rule of Law’ who are slapping back at these teenaged-mentality judges. Who are these Negative Nancies who want the job done right? Is it some rogue judge in some backwoods district who’s taken The Law into his own hands and doesn’t play well with others? Nope, just a few justices on the same 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that tossed out Trump’s travel ban in the first place! Crazy, ain’t it?
At least 5 of the 9th Circuit Appeals court’s 29 judges have actually asked that the full 9th circuit court meet to discuss vacating the initial decision on grounds that it is, to put it in Common Parlance, ‘a boneheaded mistake that was solely founded on emotional appeals, was a gross overreach of court authority, and was a disgusting and deliberate misinterpretation of legal statute/precedent and Constitutional Law.’
Having a court vacate a decision is relatively rare. It’s the judicial system’s equivalent of saying to the world, ‘Hey, babe… We have to admit, last weekend was a blur. I think we got too drunk on Power or our own Egos and we just want to apologize for acting like a bunch of incompetent halfwits and making this court and country look bad in public. We’re SOO sorry about what we tried to do to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, what with the empty tequila bottle and the extra creamy peanut butter and all. Can you ever forgive us?’
Having 5 current Circuit Appeals court judges so scathingly and unequivocally destroy the original trio of judges’ rationale for their decision is even more unheard of. For those of you who enjoy solid arguments that take into account: Constitutional law, long-standing legal precedents, and a faint dash of Legitimate Reasoning (basically, everything that a judge is required to consider when making a Decision and none of that emotional cheese sauce that costs everyone extra), the link is here (the ‘good’ stuff starts on page 4).
At this point, it’s pretty obvious that the only thing we can take away from this legal debacle is that the court system is overwhelmingly populated with angsty teenage social crusaders who don’t have the mental or emotional capacity to be trusted with coming to a sound decision on the ‘tough’ question of ‘what’s for dinner?’, let alone tackling the only question that a Federal judge is required to address: ‘is this legal/constitutional?’. It’s probably time that this nation started removing these judges for gross incompetence and misbehavior in their court rulings (there is a path to make this happen that doesn’t include impeachment), because this has started getting ridiculous. Stupidity this blatant and in such a vital position of government functioning is neither appropriate nor a good idea in terms of what’s best for this nation.