Nonwhite Judge Blocks Trump’s Latest Travel Ban

JUDGE DERRICK WATSON. BLOCKED EARLIER TRAVEL BAN TOO.

Wikipedia tells us that Judge Derrick Watson, who is determined to prevent any travel ban at all from ever taking place for any reason, is an Obama appointee. He is a Native Hawaiian.

He’s also not surprisingly allegedly received threats for his unconcern with public safety.

So, back goes the Attorney General’s office to the Supreme Court, which really needs to excoriate this little Hawaiian worn.

ABC News

A federal judge in Hawaii blocked most of President Donald Trump’s latest travel ban Tuesday, just hours before it was set to take effect, saying the revised order “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor.”

It was the third set of travel restrictions issued by the president to be thwarted, in whole or in part, by the courts.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued the ruling after the ban on a set of mostly Muslim countries was challenged by the state of Hawaii, which warned that the restrictions would separate families and undermine the recruiting of diverse college students.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the ruling “dangerously flawed” and said it “undercuts the president’s efforts to keep the American people safe.” The Justice Department said it will quickly appeal.

At issue was a ban, announced in September and set to go into effect early Wednesday, on travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, along with some Venezuelan government officials and their families.

The Trump administration said the ban was based on an assessment of each country’s security situation and willingness to share information with the U.S.

Watson, appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, said the new restrictions ignore a federal appeals court ruling against Trump’s previous ban.

The latest version “plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the 9th Circuit has found antithetical to … the founding principles of this nation,” Watson wrote.

The judge’s ruling applies only to the six Muslim-majority countries on the list. It does not affect the restrictions against North Korea or Venezuela, because Hawaii did not ask for that.

“This is the third time Hawaii has gone to court to stop President Trump from issuing a travel ban that discriminates against people based on their nation of origin or religion,” Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said in a statement. “Today is another victory for the rule of law.”

Hawaii argued the updated ban was a continuation of Trump’s campaign call for a ban on Muslims, despite the addition of two countries without a Muslim majority.

Watson noted that Hawaii had argued Trump did not back down from that call, listing in the ruling a series of June tweets “in which (Trump) complained about how the Justice Department had submitted a ‘watered down, politically correct version’ to the Supreme Court.”

Other courts that weighed the travel ban have cited Trump’s comments about banning Muslims, including the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia and a federal judge in Maryland. Watson also referred to a Trump campaign statement in his previous ruling.

His Tuesday ruling said the new ban, like its predecessor, fails to show that nationality alone makes a person a greater security risk to the U.S.

“The categorical restrictions on entire populations of men, women and children, based upon nationality, are a poor fit for the issues regarding the sharing of ‘public-safety and terrorism-related information’ that the president identifies,” Watson wrote.

He said the ban is inconsistent in the way some countries are included or left out. For example, Iraq failed to meet the security benchmark but was omitted from the ban. Somalia met the information-sharing benchmark but was included.

Watson found fault with what sorts of visitors are barred. For instance, all tourists and business travelers from Libya are excluded from the U.S., but student visitors were allowed.

The judge said he would set an expedited hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order blocking the ban should be extended. It comes as other courts weigh challenges to the ban.

In Maryland, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are seeking to block the visa and entry restrictions. Washington state, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, New York and Maryland are challenging the order in front of the same federal judge in Seattle who struck down Trump’s initial ban in January.

That ban — aimed mostly at Muslim-majority countries — led to chaos and confusion at airports nationwide and triggered several lawsuits, including one from Hawaii.

When Trump revised the ban, Hawaii challenged that version, too, and Watson agreed it discriminated on the basis of nationality and religion. A subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed the administration to partially reinstate restrictions against Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and against all refugees.

Hawaii then successfully challenged the government’s definition of which relatives of people already living in the U.S. would be allowed into the country, and Watson ordered the list expanded.

Nonwhites shouldn’t be judges except for their own peoples. This one wants to create chaos, justifying it with that liberal catchall, “inclusion.”

Neocon Jew Max Boot Advocates Mass Invasion of Nonwhites to Man America Military

MAX BOOT.

Steve Sailer exposes the dangerous mindset of a neocon Jew, a Hillary supporter who has a history of influencing American foreign policy.

Excerpt from Lew Rockwell

“The military would do well today to open its ranks not only to legal immigrants but also to illegal ones and, as important, to untold numbers of young men and women who are not here now but would like to come.

No doubt many would be willing to serve for some set period in return for one of the world’s most precious commodities — U.S. citizenship.”

– Max Boot, Feb. 2005, LA Times

Continue reading

NY Times Jewish Writer: White Nationalism Is Destroying the West

The writer’s name is Sasha Polakow-Suransky. I’ve selected certain passages to bold. Most of the bolding I’ve done highlights lies. A few places are bolded because they’re merely interesting.

New York Times

On July 14, 2016, as French families strolled along Nice’s seafront promenade, a Tunisian man driving a large truck rammed into a crowd, killing 86 people. A month later, the mayor of nearby Cannes declared that “burkinis” — a catchall term for modest swimwear favored by many religious women — would be banned from the city’s beaches; a municipal official called the bathing suits “ostentatious clothing” expressing an “allegiance to terrorist movements that are at war with us.”

One of the law’s first victims was a third-generation Frenchwoman who was ordered by the police to strip off her veil while onlookers shouted, “Go back to your country.” Still, many French politicians and intellectuals rushed to defend the ban. The former president Nicolas Sarkozy called modest swimwear “a provocation”; Alain Finkielkraut, a prominent philosopher, argued that “the burkini is a flag.” But what they presented as a defense of secular liberal values was in fact an attack on them — a law, masquerading as neutral, had explicitly targeted one religious group.

When rapid immigration and terrorist attacks occur simultaneously — and the terrorists belong to the same ethnic or religious group as the new immigrants — the combination of fear and xenophobia can be dangerous and destructive. In much of Europe, fear of jihadists (who pose a genuine security threat) and animosity toward refugees (who generally do not) have been conflated in a way that allows far-right populists to seize on Islamic State attacks as a pretext to shut the doors to desperate refugees, many of whom are themselves fleeing the Islamic State, and to engage in blatant discrimination against Muslim fellow citizens.

But this isn’t happening only in European countries. In recent years, anti-immigration rhetoric and nativist policies have become the new normal in liberal democracies from Europe to the United States. Legitimate debates about immigration policy and preventing extremism have been eclipsed by an obsessive focus on Muslims that paints them as an immutable civilizational enemy that is fundamentally incompatible with Western democratic values.

Yet despite the breathless warnings of impending Islamic conquest sounded by alarmist writers and pandering politicians, the risk of Islamization of the West has been greatly exaggerated. Islamists are not on the verge of seizing power in any advanced Western democracy or even winning significant political influence at the polls.

Continue reading

Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better

You can take this piece written by the attractive woman, Ida Auken, pictured above, as a WARNING or as a vision of Utopia that the globalists are selling to the masses.

As a warning, let me clarify the message. In 2030 your every move will be subject to government approval. In effect you will be a slave. Owning nothing is being propagandized as a good thing, when in fact if a person owns nothing, he’s totally dependent on government to supply him what he needs when he needs it. This would seem to open up many possibilities for an evil government to genocide certain groups, such as those who resist the agenda.

World Economic Forum

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city”. I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?

Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.

“Environmental problems seem far away”

In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.

Once in awhile, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy – the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.

This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.

The death of shopping

Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.

When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don’t really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.

For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.

“They live different kinds of lives outside of the city”

My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.

Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.

All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realised that we could do things differently.

Author’s note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading – for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

Written by

Ida Auken, Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark (Folketinget)

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Read comments on this article at Bodybuilding Forum

Trump Pulls Out of UNESCO in Support of Israel

Candidate Donald Trump ran a campaign that was partly about getting tough with the United Nations.

In a Thursday morning surprise, he announced the U.S. would withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Conservatives, nationalists, and populists should be happy to see the UN weakened by this move. Soon after, Israel also withdrew from UNESCO.

This excerpt explains the background to Trump’s move. The part that everyone should be concerned about is that he did it for Israel.

Excerpt from Vox

Thursday morning, Americans woke up to some news that felt like it was out of left field: The Trump administration was withdrawing the United States from membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

This seemed strange because UNESCO is such an inoffensive-seeming organization: Its most prominent function is designating and protecting official international landmarks, called World Heritage Sites — places like The Alamo and the Great Barrier Reef. What possible reason could the US have for quitting an organization devoted to culture and science?

The reality, though, is bit a more complex, as the US and UNESCO have actually been at loggerheads since 2011.

The key issue, as with many US-UN disputes, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In October 2011, UNESCO admitted the Palestinian territories to the organization as an independent member-state called Palestine. This triggered a US law which cut off American funding for any organization that recognized an independent Palestine. The US had previously paid for 22 percent ($80 million) of UNESCO’s annual budget.

Finally, in 2013, after the US missed several rounds of payments to UNESCO, the organization suspended US voting rights in its core decision-making bodies. So the US hasn’t been a real UNESCO member for a while. Trump is just making that status official — and scoring a domestic public relations coup with pro-Israel, anti-UN conservatives in the process.

“A lot of UNESCO’s work is quite pointless,” Gowan tells me. “But it also runs an odd array of worthwhile programs on issues ranging from education to tsunami warning.”

Some of these things, like supporting international Holocaust education, are really important. But the organization isn’t nearly as prominent or geopolitically significant as the UN Security Council, which sets binding international law, or UN Peacekeeping, a body literally tasked with helping war-torn countries transition to peace. That makes UNESCO a natural venue for countries that want to engage in ideological grandstanding and symbolic protest votes without actually causing too much chaos in the international system.

Earlier this year, UNESCO designated the core area of the West Bank city of Hebron — home to the Cave of the Patriarchs, an important religious site for Jews and Muslims — as a Palestinian World Heritage Site, a symbolic slight of both the US and Israel. It’s easy to imagine UNESCO voting to take more actions like this in the future.

“Non-Western countries are already a powerful bloc in UNESCO, and their influence will increase further [after US withdrawal],” says Gowan. “Expect lots and lots more UNESCO resolutions bashing Israel, for a start.”

Vox’s use of the word “bashing” tells you their politics. Israel can’t be criticized without somebody paying a price. Fair criticism and bashing are two different things. How far will Trump go to please the Israeli lobby?

Useful Idiots

Seen at WaitWhat’s Twitter

Inspirational Quote of the Day: Psalm 58

The perfect quote to be read at the funerals of John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and similar American rulers.

1Justice—do you rulers58:1 Or you gods. know the meaning of the word?
Do you judge the people fairly?

2No! You plot injustice in your hearts.
You spread violence throughout the land.

3These wicked people are born sinners;
even from birth they have lied and gone their own way.

4They spit venom like deadly snakes;
they are like cobras that refuse to listen,

5ignoring the tunes of the snake charmers,
no matter how skillfully they play.

6Break off their fangs, O God!
Smash the jaws of these lions, O Lord!

7May they disappear like water into thirsty ground.
Make their weapons useless in their hands.58:7 Or Let them be trodden down and wither like grass. The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.

8May they be like snails that dissolve into slime,
like a stillborn child who will never see the sun.

9God will sweep them away, both young and old,
faster than a pot heats over burning thorns.

10The godly will rejoice when they see injustice avenged.
They will wash their feet in the blood of the wicked.

11Then at last everyone will say,
“There truly is a reward for those who live for God;
surely there is a God who judges justly here on earth.”

Bible.com