Stacking the Deck: The Muslim Ban

[Aquila]

What most aren't getting is that the ban on Muslim travel, refugees, and immigration is an ingenious political move. We all know that terrorists are going to strike again at some point. When that happens Trump has stacked the deck.

You see, in the wake of an attack, if the executive order isn't overturned and stands.... the Trump administration can claim the measure is justified and push for broader domestic powers to track and spy on Americans and restrictions on those entering the country.

If the executive order is overturned before an attack.... Trump will be able to place blame on the courts and push for broader domestic powers to track and spy on Americans and restrict those entering the country.

It becomes a win/win for Trump, setting him up for a massive power-grab. In either circumstance, if we are faced with a grim terrorist attack with a high death toll, Trump is set up to move and abolish limitations that prevent the use of the military as it relates to domestic police action, the expansion of detainment centers, torture, limitations on media access, registries, CIA black sites, and warrantless searches and surveillance.

With such vocal opposition among Democrats, he is also set up to politically slaughter the Democrats after such an attack, saying that liberal opposition to the ban shows that they are out of touch and incapable of keeping America safe. And if the ban is overturned, he'll blame the courts and the Democrats for "allowing it happen".

Frankly, Trump has chosen an ingenious political position with the Muslim ban. Even his attacks on the media, though outlandish, will seem justified in the wake of an attack.

The Democrats have no clue that their protest, no matter how altruistic, liberty minded, and civil rights based, will be used to politically hang them.

Now, all Trump needs is a significant attack on US soil. And I'm sure such an attack will be best exploited if it is just before the Midterm Elections. Thank God the Trump Administration wouldn't ever just allow such an attack to take place.

Let's see what happens....

[votivesoul]

It's not a Muslim ban. Non-Muslims from those same 7 countries are not allowed to travel here, per the EO, if they don't carry the visas outlined in the EO, even as we await the fallout from the restriction by a federal judge.

Here is the EO in full:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/u...T.nav=top-news

Neither the word Muslim or Islam is anywhere in the EO.

What's funny though is that the Constitution specifically states the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. So, how does a federal judge have any authority to overturn that?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It's not a Muslim ban. Non-Muslims from those same 7 countries are not allowed to travel here, per the EO, if they don't carry the visas outlined in the EO, even as we await the fallout from the restriction by a federal judge.

Here is the EO in full:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/u...T.nav=top-news

Neither the word Muslim or Islam is anywhere in the EO.

What's funny though is that the Constitution specifically states the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. So, how does a federal judge have any authority to overturn that?

Exactly

[Esaias]

It wouldn't matter if Trump ran on the Bahai platform or what, a major "terror attack" would result in restrictions on freedom here in the USA. Why? Because most Americans value security over freedom.

On a side note, the "protests" are paid astroturfers and useful idiot SJW types who do not reflect anything but their handlers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It's not a Muslim ban. Non-Muslims from those same 7 countries are not allowed to travel here, per the EO, if they don't carry the visas outlined in the EO, even as we await the fallout from the restriction by a federal judge.

Here is the EO in full:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/u...T.nav=top-news

Neither the word Muslim or Islam is anywhere in the EO.

What's funny though is that the Constitution specifically states the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. So, how does a federal judge have any authority to overturn that?

God bless smart people who read the information, listen to the information, and understand the information.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It wouldn't matter if Trump ran on the Bahai platform or what, a major "terror attack" would result in restrictions on freedom here in the USA. Why? Because most Americans value security over freedom.

On a side note, the "protests" are paid astroturfers and useful idiot SJW types who do not reflect anything but their handlers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Exactly

Thank you for being intelligent

Cooking bacon in oven tonight.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It's not a Muslim ban. Non-Muslims from those same 7 countries are not allowed to travel here, per the EO, if they don't carry the visas outlined in the EO, even as we await the fallout from the restriction by a federal judge.

I understand that. It is commonly referred to as being the “Muslim Ban” because it focuses upon 7 Muslim countries and stands to effect Muslim travelers and immigrants from those countries the most.

Here is the EO in full:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/u...T.nav=top-news

Good information. Thanks for posting.

Neither the word Muslim or Islam is anywhere in the EO.

I know that. But this is commonly referred to as the, “Muslim Ban”.

What's funny though is that the Constitution specifically states the POTUS has the right to restrict immigration travel into the USA. So, how does a federal judge have any authority to overturn that?

I was thinking the same thing.


All of the above being said…. How does anything you posted address the premise of the original post???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It wouldn't matter if Trump ran on the Bahai platform or what, a major "terror attack" would result in restrictions on freedom here in the USA. Why? Because most Americans value security over freedom.

True. But I think you aren’t seeing exactly what I’m seeing. The executive order was an excellent political move. If there is an attack, it stands to help Trump say, “See, I’m right. The left didn’t get it.” Or (if the executive order is somehow overturned) “See, federal judges and the left allowed this to happen.” Politically speaking, it is an excellent move. In both scenarios, the Trump would definitely impose restrictions on freedom and expand the power of his office. I’m talking about the politics behind the move.

On a side note, the "protests" are paid astroturfers and useful idiot SJW types who do not reflect anything but their handlers.

Well, I can’t speak for every protest, but I can tell you that I know several protestors personally, and no…. they aren’t paid.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

God bless smart people who read the information, listen to the information, and understand the information.

Blessed are the smart people who can actually grasp the premise of the original post. Lol