President Trump: We need The Travel Ban…

Protecting the United States and her citizens is the first, last and primary duty of President Donald J Trump. The security of American life and liberty is the strongest principle of governance that leaves no room for concession.  [ VIDEO ]


President Trump has access to information and intelligence insight that enables him to look much further toward the horizon than the daily partisan arguments -promoted by the media- against his outlooks.

This entry was posted in DHS, FBI, ISIS, Islam, Jihad, media bias, Muslim Grievance Industry - MGI, Political correctness/cultural marxism, President Trump, Terrorist Attacks, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

249 Responses to President Trump: We need The Travel Ban…

  1. Pam says:

    Liked by 13 people

  2. SR says:

    If there is no leak then fake MSM have no news. PTrump tweets are killing the fake MSM and not too many people trust and follow fake MSM. The cable is a dinosaur but PTrump making it faster. Sunday shows are already dead, 60 minutes dead, new show of Meagain Kelly is falling apart. Only way they are making money are advertisements and cable commission.

    Liked by 4 people

    • StuckIntheMiddle says:

      I feel kinda weird that I trust Mr Putins words more than I trust the US media


    • Twinsonic says:

      SR, the last sentence resonated with me – President Trump, Republicans, and the American people should draft a bill to break cable packages into ala carte. You and other subscribers should only buy cable channels that you watch – and the billing should be broken down where the monies that you pay go to. You want to the the left leaning news howl with outrage on this? I can see CNN and their ilk literally shrunk in size to meet profits…..


  3. fleporeblog says:

    The SC will make their ultimate decision not based on any damn tweet our President wrote when he was a candidate or since he has become president. The LSM are getting the hopes of their radical followers up for another ultimate failure. They are trying to convince them that the SC will use his tweets against him.

    I have not a doubt in the world that the SC will lift the restriction on the ban soon after the briefs have to be submitted on June 12th. There should be 9 justices that vote in favor of it. However, there are a couple of loonies that may not. At that point they can still wait for October since the urgency is gone but will probably do so prior because the left will be losing their minds. This decision is so much bigger than our Lion. The fact that the lower courts were moronic to state that had it been any other President, they would have ruled in favor of the EO means this decision determines the faith of Lady Justice herself.

    That is why I am so confident we will win soon after the 12th and again when the court hears the case! Hopefully this is resolved in time for Justice Kennedy to retire and go off into the sunset so that we can get another conservative judge to replace him. It will either be Judge Thomas Hardiman or Judge William Pryor.

    If you would like to read up on them, checkout the link below.

    From the article linked above:

    Pryor is arguably the most controversial pick among the leading candidates for the nomination. Choosing him would assuage conservatives who want Trump to swing the court sharply to the right.

    The view should hearten gun rights advocates and would appeal to Trump’s political base. During the campaign, Trump vowed to fight gun control efforts as president and protect the Second Amendment.

    Sent from my iPad

    Liked by 6 people

    • RBG needs to reuse herself so should be 8 votes in favor of the President.

      Liked by 3 people

    • WeThePeople2016 says:

      I agree with you. That has been my thinking as well. Why did they respond so quickly to the DOJ request (within 24 hours) and why did they give just a week (June 12) to hear from the lower courts if they weren’t going to do something quickly. I also don’t think that Trump’s Tweets will have an effect.

      As for Conway’s husband, something has not been adding up to me on why he made those Tweets today. He took his name out last week to work in the DOJ. I find it rather peculiar that he all of a sudden starts Tweeting about Trump less than a week later. Also, for all we know, there could be some friction going on there between the hubby and KAC. He may be jealous that she works inside the W.H. and has a prestigious position. Maybe, his Tweets were aimed to embarrass her or hurt her stance with Trump.

      If you are wondering why I might be saying this, my degrees are in both Professional Counseling and Psychology. I might know a thing or two about relationships.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jlwary says:

        If what you suspect is true, it’s very cruel.

        Liked by 1 person

        • WeThePeople2016 says:

          You are correct. People can do some pretty darn nasty things in public to harm others in many different ways, believe it or not.


          • benifranlkin says:

            YUP. He knew he would hurt and embarrass his wife Kellyanne with that tweet. Not good. Rather outrageous to me. I’d clean his clock and leave him in the dust for a stunt like that. I don’t think her kids wanted to be in DC and obviously Mr. doesn’t want to be there either. Wanna bet Kelly disappears in near future “to spend more time with her family.” ?


    • jmsvoice says:

      The ban will be reversed 5-4. Kennedy will be the swing vote for the majority. As the 3 Republican-appointee dissenters stated in the 4th Circuit case, the majority’s decision violates the controlling SCOTUS precedent in Mandel, that lack of good faith in the face of the government’s action must appear on the face of the regulation, EO or law, not from looking behind at extraneous statements made by politicians, and that is carried over in its progeny Fiallo and Kerry v. Din, 135 S.Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015)(Kennedy, J., concurring). In Kerry, Justice Kennedy, writing for himself and Alito, provided the fourth and fifth votes to uphold the reasoning in Mandel and that it has “particular force in the area of national security.” Kennedy ain’t going to like the fact that these 9 pissant Democrap appointees, and one liberal Republican appointee black chief judge trashed his opinion, and concocted out of whole cloth a new rule of law that uses campaign statements to recast, plain, unambiguous, and religiously neutral text of an executive order, and radically extends SCOTUS’s Establishment Clause holdings.

      Liked by 1 person

    • jmsvoice says:

      Time for Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg to retire. But they’ll have to take the old bat out in a casket.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. lawton says:

    It doesn’t matter if she recuses herself or not because it takes 5 votes to issue an emergency stay if Roberts wont do it himself and it will still take 5 votes to undo the 4th Circuit ruling.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Pam says:

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Ron says:

    The part about the “Travel Ban”… Acosta tried to say today that they originally didn’t call it that.

    That wasn’t the issue, the pushback was against calling it a MUSLIM BAN, it was never about not calling it a TRAVEL BAN.

    It’s always been a Travel Ban, never a Muslim Ban.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Pam says:

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Pam says:

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Pam says:


  10. Pam says:


  11. Pam says:


  12. Maquis says:

    Travel Ban the Damn “Refugees”!


  13. Mojo56 says:

    We don’t need a travel ban. We need an IMMIGRATION ban. All immigration (including ‘refugees’) needs to be stopped for a minimum of 5 years. After that we should allow immigration based on the needs of our nation. Any potential immigrant should have a sponsor who is a citizen of the USA, have a minimum amount of money in a US bank account ($20,000?) and have a marketable skill which would guarantee employment.


  14. The travel ban was described as a delay of a few months to allow development and application of new vetting requirements for high-risk countries. It was supposed to be a prudent, immediate, temporary action.

    It is now a few months later. Trump tweeted that extreme vetting is now in place. This would make the temporary ban irrelevent. It is the vetting which is important and more permanent, not the ban.

    So, why is there still a case for the Supreme Court? Possibly Trump wants vindication for his plan for the travel ban. That isn’t a bad desire, but it is confusing the issue now.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s