BREAKING: Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau closing border to non-Canadians

This just in, Justin Trudeau, PM of Canada [eh] said on Monday morning that he will be closing the border to non-Canadian citizens due to the coronavirus pandemic, according to the Associated Press. [Who are they associated with, by the way? I never thought to ask.]

Justin just spoke to the media from Rideau Cottage in Ottawa, the nation's capital. Pretty Boy said that Canada is currently closed to non Canadians or non permanent residents, which would be racist except he's not President Trump and he's a liberal to boot. Oh, and his wife tests positive for COVID-19, so there's that.

Trudeau said that, um, er, exceptions will be made for airline crews, diplomats, and immediate family members and U.S. citizens. He also said that, airlines will ban anyone who is showing symptoms of the virus from getting on a plane. “That means, um,  anyone who has, um, symptoms will not be able enter Canada,” he said.

Trudeau said Toronto's Pearson International Airport, Vancouver International Airport, Montreal Trudeau Airport and Calgary International Airport will still receive international flights, and domestic flights and flights from the U.S., Mexico and the Caribbean will still be in service.

More may follow, so check in with BF and don't forget to wash your hands more than you think you need to. Seriously.


Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a terrorist gets his virgins.






Tweet

Supremes back Trump on refugee ban for now

The U.S. Supreme Court has bigly backed President Trump's travel ban, saying he can stop thousands of unvetted refugees from entering the United States while the justices prepare to hear a broader challenge to the policy where liberals can hopefully allow the floodgates to open and all hell to break loose as illegal immigrants and so-called refugees to flood into the country.

The Supremes put on hold a federal appeals court ruling in which a judge, trying to make a name for himself in the progressive community, said that the President of the United States couldn't apply his travel ban to approximately 24,000 refugees once a resettlement agency promised they'd provide basic services for them.

The high court is scheduled to hear arguments October 10th on Trump's travel order, which imposes a 90-day ban on primarily unvetted Muslims entering the U.S. from six Islamic theocracies and a 120-day ban on refugees.

The whole purpose of the ban is simply to vet these people because vetting is smart and ISIS has promised us that some of their scum-crumpets will be among the innocent. Not vetting the refugees is stupidly suicidal, in spite of the lower courts with their leftist judges saying the President of the United States overstepped his authority and unconstitutionally target Muslims. 

The small-time judges are trying to grab power over the president and make themselves more powerful among their leftist peers.

The high court cleared part of the ban on June 26th. It is to take place for now and ruled that the U.S. had to admit people with a "bona fide relationship with a person or entity."

In July, the Supreme Court ruled that those with grandparents and cousins in the U.S. are among those who must be admitted. Of course we're never certain of familial ties and basically have to take their word for it, but the administration said Monday it wouldn't ask the court to revisit that issue.

The Trump administration asked, in the same filing, to reinstate a broad version of the refugee ban because the so-called assurance agreements don't meet the "bona fide" test as those accords are between the resettlement agency and the government.

"An assurance agreement does not create any relationship whatsoever with the refugee," acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued.

Hawaii, where former president Obama was allegedly born, challenged the Trump policy. They urged the justices to allow the appeals court ruling to stand, saying assurance agreements require resettlement agencies to make large investments in preparing for the arrival of refugees. They also believe the refugees don't pose any true security threat, but obviously they're trying to blow smoke where the sun doesn't shine.

"Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the government has pointed to in the past," Hawaii argued. "By the government's own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security."

If government agencies were so great at risk analysis, why are there so many lawsuits against drug companies when we have the FDA?



Tweet

Trump triumphs as travel ban is mostly reinstated

In a yoooge victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump's proposed ban on travel from six nations that tend to be importers of terrorism. Not so coincidentally, these nations are Muslim-majority. 

The Supreme Court will revisit the ban in October when they go back in session.

This decision will have the justices delve into the biggest legal quagmire since Trump took office. His order temporarily restricts travel and the court made it clear that a limited version of the policy can immediately be enforced.

Much of the policy has been reinstated, but travelers who have family in the U.S. will be excluded from the ban.

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded," the court wrote. "As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connections to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security."

Trump has been openly pissed off after his original executive order of January 27th, was partially blocked by a federal court.

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on February 4th.

Trump has been looking forward to the Supreme Court to take up the case and get it out of the hands of liberal (aka leftist) appellate judges.

Now that Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and he has since been confirmed, the balance of the court goes to the right side of the aisle.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: "The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits--that is, that the judgments below will be reversed." This was also supported by justices Alito and Gorsuch. "The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its 'compelling need to provide for the Nation's security.'"

The federal appeals courts in California and Virginia ruled against Trump in recent weeks. And when Trump was a presidential candidate, a majority of the 4th Circuit appeals court cited his statements at the time that he was proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."

But the White House frames the ban as a temporary move involving national security, and any fair-minded person who sees what's happening in the world would agree that a greater security threat exists from people coming from Islamic majority countries than from other nations.

The most difficult aspect of the immigration question the court will deal with is deciding just how much discretion does a president have over immigration. Courts have been deferential in the past and would allow presidents to use their discretion to deny entry to certain groups of refugees and diplomats.

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed in 1952 gives the president broad authority. Section 212 (f) states that: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Justice Thomas criticized the majority for the compromise made in Monday's ruling. He indicated that he would have allowed the order to be enforced in full and believes "the Court's remedy" would inspire a flood of new litigation.

"Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding--on perils of contempt--whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote. "The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid §2(c)' of Executive Order No. 13780."

Hopefully, a more center-right Supreme Court will quash the attempts of the liberal appellate courts to obstruct Trump's reasonable executive orders.


Tweet

Imam debunks Michigan man's claim that travel ban killed his mom

Dearborn, MI -- A Muslim man who claimed his mother died due to President Trump's travel ban that prevented her from returning to the US for medical treatment was merely using taqiyya (i.e., lying) to the media, according to the imam of a local mosque.

Mike (possibly an Americanization for Mohammad) Hager told TV stations in Boston and Detroit he tried to bring his mother back from Iraq last Friday but she wasn't allowed to enter the U.S. because of the Trump travel order restricting entry from seven countries known for spawning terrorists.

He also told Fox2: "Since I lost my mom I've been on heavy medication--I can't even sleep. I did not make anything up."

The last part should have been the clue that he was lying.

But Imam Husham Al-Hussainy said that Hager's mother actually died January 22nd, five days before the travel restrictions went into effect. The imam told the news station prayers for the woman at the Karbalaa Islamic Foundation Center in Dearborn.

So it looks like "Mike" won't be getting compensated for his anti-depressants or be able to sue Trump for the travel ban that he said killed his mom.

In fact, Hager posted on Facebook a memorial statement for his mother on January 22nd which he since deleted.

Al-Hussainy said he first learned that the woman died after members of his mosque and family's Facebook posts. A funeral was held for the woman at a nearby mosque last weekend.

Hager's claim was that he was a U.S. citizen but his mother and other family members who traveled to Iraq were not. The others were not allowed to return, he claimed.

How disgusting of anyone who would use the death of a parent to further a geopolitical and religious cause.

But it's comforting to know that there are imams and other Muslims who are patriotic.

Tweet

Second day of protests against Trump's executive order

Demonstrators gathered at the White House and many of the  country's airports continue to protest President Trump's executive order placing a temporary travel restriction on those coming from seven terrorist-spawning countries and halting the acceptance of refugees who cannot be adequately vetted.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) referred to Trump's executive order as a "reckless, unconstitutional, unsavory, un-American effort." But not when Obama wrote and executive order keeping Iraqis from entering the US for six months, rather than the three that Trump called for. But he may be correct in saying that it's unconstitutional--both Trump and Obama may have gone too far, but the hypocrisy of Jeffries is palpable.

"If this order was really about trying to make America the safest country it can be, then why were some countries left off the order? Most notably Saudi Arabia?" he said in a news conference at JFK. "Is it because the Trump organization exists in Saudi Arabia?"

I agree with the question Jeffries asks but I don't agree with his possible hypothesis. It isn't about Trump as to why the Saudis are not on the list--it's about other issues that I discuss here.

Cory Booker, (aka the man who would be POTUS) spoke to demonstrators at Dulles International Airport earlier Sunday and said he would also go to Newark Airport and hopefully voters will remember that in 2020. 

"The entire executive order is a farce," Jeffries said. "It's a smokescreen. It has nothing to do with trying to keep this country safe."

Perhaps Jeffries believes that taking in refugees is a way to keep us safe. He needs to visit Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands for starters. 

It isn't known if these demonstrators are being paid to protest a la George the Socialist Soros. My guess is they are, unless they don't have jobs and hope to be hired by Soros in the future.

Outside the White House a crowd chanted "No hate, no fear, refugees are welcome here," except where they live. They also chanted "no wall, no ban." It was all prefaced with "hey, hey, ho, ho, yadda, yadda's gotta go."




Tweet

"Don't Sweat the Ebola, Folks, I Don't," Obama Says

"President" Obama defended his untenable position against a travel ban on West Africa, the Ebola vacation spot of the world. He is urging Americans to resist Ebola 'hysteria' and not worry about catching this deadly virus. So far only 4500 people have died in West Africa from the virus, so Obama isn't restricting flights from that part of the world.

Barack smiled at the cameras and reassured us: "I'm not in the least bit worried that I'll catch Ebola, and I even have a name that rhymes with it." Of course he doesn't come in close contact with the public and flies in the Presidential Jet and helicopter. He carries a card in his wallet of Alfred E. Neuman that says, "What, me worry?"