America In 140 Characters Or Less

twitter logo  We all know by now our new President, Donald Trump, prefers to communicate with the American people through his Twitter account.  Many feel this is a way to circumvent the media, and to deliver his message directly to the people. Others feel it can be a dangerous way to communicate, seeing as there is the real possibility of his Tweets affecting policy and world markets.

The fact he spends so much time responding to things like Saturday Night Live skits, and arguing about the size of a crowd is troubling enough. However, when he is basically making up national policy on a Twitter account, the risk is off the scale.

It seems as though, even when he is attempting to make policy in a more traditional manner, like signing executive orders, he can’t help himself from treating it like a Tweet.

This past weekend the President decided to sign another, one of many, executive order. This one concerning the immigration of refugees and others from countries deemed dangerous. Now we can argue the merit of the act, and the need for such action. Of course the lines will be drawn down the usual center, between the left and the right, the Trump supporters and everyone else.

I feel the larger issue here is not simply the order itself, and what it proposes to do. I feel the real issue here is how this was handled by the administration. This clearly was not a well thought out plan. This was a spur of the moment action, which caught the people who had to enforce it completely off guard.

President Trump and his inner circle put together this travel ban, listing seven nations from which no one would be allowed to enter the United States from. The planning, seems to have not included anyone from the national security sector of government. It seems as though the State Department was out of the loop as well. And considering the fact the Acting Attorney General has issued instructions to the Department of Justice, to not defend the President’s order, it would seem as though the DOJ was also not consulted. One has to wonder were any lawyers consulted before issuing this decree?

During the campaign many of us who did not support candidate Trump, felt his complete lack of experience of any kind in governing would lead to just this kind of issue. Of course his supporters said it was his outsider status which was so appealing. They said don’t worry, he will surround himself with good people to advise him. To which I, and others responded, he shows no inclination to heed advice.

I believe this was demonstrated by his Press Secretary, Sean Spicer today, when questioned about a petition from the people at the State Department questioning the travel ban order, to which Spicer responded, “they need to get with the program, or they can go”. Of course I’m sure he meant to say, “their fired”.

Several State Attorney Generals have, or will be filing law suits to stop this order based on it being unconstitutional. Again demonstrating, this order was not thought through, President Trump did not seek advice outside of his closest advisors, and shows no inclination to back away from this in the face of growing evidence it is likely to be struck down.

Now I know there are many supporters of President Trump who support the idea of the travel ban, and have no problem with it, even if it is actually a ban on Muslims. I know they will justify his actions, and praise his delivering on a campaign promise.

I keep trying to find that point at which their blind devotion to the man, will bow to logic and commonsense, and honesty. Could this be that moment?

Even if you support the ban, can we at least agree the way in which it was implemented was club handed at best, amateurish at least, and at worst, woefully ignorant of the constitution, and blatantly arrogant.

It is becoming obvious to all but the most die-hard supporter, that President Trump has no idea how to govern, he obviously does not recognize the fact,  you can’t govern in the same manner in which you run a corporation. You can’t simply send out a memo to do this or that, without clear rules of engagement. He is attempting to use a broad sword when a scalpel is needed.

It will fall to the Republicans in Congress, and the courts, to rein in this President, if it is possible at all.  That was the intentions of the built-in checks and balances of the Constitution, we will have to see if they will do their sworn duty to uphold that document, or will they simply cave to partisan pressure?

 

28 Comments on "America In 140 Characters Or Less"

  1. Rick says:

    Several State Attorney Generals have, or will be filing law suits to stop this order based on it being unconstitutional.

    States’ Attorney’s General have no standing. The executive order does not require the states to do anything. The order is implemented and enforced by federal agencies.

    The order is constitutional. Foreign nations- and their citizens- are not protected by the First Amendment. There is no constitutional right to immigrate to the United States. And nowhere in the executive order do the words “Muslim” or “religion” appear. In law, words matter (usually).

    It is true that the foreign states affected are majority Muslim; but there are people of other religions residing in those states (although Christians are being exterminated in many of them). And those people are restricted under the order.

    The fact that a liberal judge appointed by Obama, who is also a close friend of Chuck Schumer, granted a temporary stay only shows the politicization of the courts. The Circuit Court would reverse the order, although it is basically irrelevant since the airport detainees affected have already been processed. Apparently, only around 150 of those detainees were subjected to intensified scrutiny.

    The narrative now showcased by the leftist media and their Socialist-Democrats collaborators is that Trump is impetuous, erratic, illegitimate and so on. And this is the reaction Trump expected. He wants the Socialist-Democrats to be joined at the hip to the violent protest movement, and set up his administration as representing law-and-order while portraying the Socialist-Democrats as encouraging anarchy and chaos.

    This was the modus operandi of Nixon in 68-72, and it worked. The anti war movement had rallies in Washington and throughout the country- and the world! And the media was all-in. Socialist-Democrats were giddy- they got their antiwar candidate nominated, and surely Nixon was toast; remember; “the whole world is watching?”

    Then the election came, and Nixon carried 49 states.

    In a choice between order and chaos, ordinary citizens don’t usually side with professional protesters. For every Trump voter in Wisconsin who felt Trump would improve the economy, there was one who associated Hillary with Black Lives Matter and their disgusting mantra “pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”

    A further benefit for Trump will be that he can reasonably urge McConnell to enact the “nuclear option” and expand Harry Reid’s suspension of the filibuster rule on judicial nominees to Supreme Court nominees. The rationale will be that, as demonstrated by the Socialist-Democrat’s vicious, hysterical reaction to the immigration ban, they will oppose anything Trump wants to do, and will scuttle any nominee that fails their ideological litmus test; thus, the President will be denied his right to appoint a Justice.

    The US Constitution doesn’t say that a judicial nominee must garner 60 votes in the Senate; it says “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” The Senate is comprised of 100 individuals and, in cases of a tie vote, the Vice President. To me, fifty votes and one from the VP constitutes “consent” of the Senate, i.e., a majority.

    Give Schumer and the rest of Senate Socialist-Democrats a dose of their own medicine; extend Reid’s imprudent filibuster ban to Supreme Court nominees.

  2. Frank Knotts says:

    Rick not sure you have read the entire text of the order, but while it does not mention specific religions by name, it does state that “minority ” religions in these country will be give special consideration, and you yourself pointed out that most of these countries are majority Muslim making others the minority. This was clearly written as a Muslim ban.
    As for what you believe to be a majority in the Senate? Well as you state the Constitution says only advise and consent on what is needed for confirmation. However it also give the Senate the authority to set its own rules, which has been set at the two thirds majority for confirmation.
    You can’t cherry pick the Constitution. Only a whole Constitution will guarantee a whole nation.

  3. Rick says:

    Rick not sure you have read the entire text of the order…

    I did not.

    However it also give the Senate the authority to set its own rules…

    Right. Which includes removing the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees.

    … it does state that “minority ” religions in these country will be give special consideration…

    That’s because Christians are being annihilated in Muslim nations.

    The legality of a nation-specific immigration ban is well established. The First Amendment does not apply to Yemen or Somalia, etc., or the citizens therein.

    Instead of wasting your time defending Islam, perhaps, as a supposed Christian, you could focus on the atrocities being perpetrated against “infidels” in the Muslim Middle East.

  4. Frank Knotts says:

    So you are commenting on a document you have not read? Okay sort of like when you talk of the Quran without having read it? Okay.
    You are correct they can change the rules, but I believe they need two thirds for that as well.
    The fact that the document draws a distinction between religions make this a Muslim ban, creating a religious test for immigration.
    And I believe the First Amendment does apply, because our founding Document, The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, not just Americans and not just Christians but all men. I find it hard to believe the men who crafted the Constitution would have ignored such a cornerstone of our founding.
    I am not defending Islam persay but I am defending the integrity of our founding principles. Which you seem all too willing to cast in the dirt in order to perpetuate your narrow view of the world.

  5. Rick says:

    Okay sort of like when you talk of the Quran without having read it? Okay.

    So you profess to know more about the Koran than the Supreme Leader of a Muslim state like Iran? Really? In which mosque were you ordained?

    Again, face reality. The reality is that in Muslim countries, Christians are murdered for being Christian. Women and gays are stoned. Civil, elected authorities are subservient to clerics. That’s reality.

    You are correct they can change the rules, but I believe they need two thirds for that as well.

    You believe incorrectly.

    From a common sense point of view, you should understand that if Republicans realize that they can’t garner 60 votes for a nominee, they wouldn’t garner 60 votes to change the rules in order to confirm the same nominee.

    I believe the First Amendment does apply, because our founding Document, The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, not just Americans and not just Christians…

    The Declaration of Independence carries no weight in matters of law. Like the Federalist Papers, the Declaration can be used to demonstrate intent or the prevailing philosophy of the era. But the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    I find it hard to believe the men who crafted the Constitution would have ignored such a cornerstone of our founding…

    Which “cornerstone?” The one that declared Negros to count as 3/5ths of a person?

    The First Amendment applies to Americans, not Middle Easterners in general.

    It has been common practice to facilitate immigration of distressed groups- Cubans, for example. In the Muslim Middle East, Christians are persecuted merely because of their religious beliefs,

    Somewhere around 75-80 percent of the Muslim world are not affected by the ban. Hence, the “Muslim ban” argument is faulty.

    There is no “right” for anybody- anybody in the world- to immigrate to the US.

    I am not defending Islam persay…

    Yes you are. You defend radical Muslim clerics who murder and maim and never defend Chistians who live in terror every day of their lives.

    … but I am defending the integrity of our founding principles.

    Restricting immigration from radical Islamic countries does not “establish” a religious test in the United States. Particularly when 70-80% of Muslims can immigrate.

    The preamble to the US Constitution starts with “We the People of the Untied States…,” not We the People of the United Nations.

    …you seem all too willing to cast in the dirt in order to perpetuate your narrow view of the world.
    Do you ever tire of repeating leftist slogans? What, exactly is a “narrow view of the world” (and I’ll bet I’ve seen a hell of a lot more of it than you have)? And what does my view- whatever it is on whatever subject- have to do with the fact that in many radical Muslim nations, a war has been declared- a religious war- on the West in general and against Christians in particular?

    Go read your Koran. Perhaps there’s a chapter on naivity.

  6. delacrat says:

    So you’re saying “they[Republicans] can’t garner 60 votes for a nominee”

    because

    “a war has been declared- a religious war- on the West in general and against Christians in particular”

    How does that work ?

  7. mouse says:

    Trump’s going to be great. He has already mastered the the short bellicose slogans and sentence fragments that ring a bell with his base. Once he gets all the smarty types who rely on reality news, university educations, science and critical analysis on board, it will be yuge!!

  8. Rick says:

    delacrat FEBRUARY 1, 2017 AT 10:31 AM
    So you’re saying “they[Republicans] can’t garner 60 votes for a nominee”

    because

    “a war has been declared- a religious war- on the West in general and against Christians in particular”

    How does that work ?

    Huh? Is that supposed to make sense?

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    The Executive Order: click here

    From the Order. Where is the term “Christian” mentioned?

    f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

    Of course, the above will apply to many Christians, since in most countries ruled by lunatic Muslim fanatics, they are relentlessly prosecuted, tortured and killed.

  9. mouse says:

    Do you people ever worry about anything that matters or are your lives so lame and mediocre that all you have is tribal resentment and sexual issue obsession?

  10. Rick says:

    Okay, Trump “tweets.” Funny, if it were Hillary tweeting, the media would be fawning over her “tech savvy” and “modern way of communicating directly with the people.” But since it’s Trump, he’s a buffoon.

    Click the highlighted “Music” line below, and read the lyrics of M&M’s recent mysoginistic rant against Ann Coulter, Palin and Trump. It is typical of the intolerance and hate that infiltrates the “liberal” Nazi mind. It’s no wonder that uneducated ghetto youngsters are so blasé about killing, when they’re inundated with this crap all day.

    “music” of “liberal” compassion

    Can you imagine if a country band performed a “song” like this about Hillary, Pelosi and Obama? They would go to jail, but when it’s the filthy left, they get a pass. No matter, just indicative of the 3-V left; Vile, vulgar and violent.

  11. Honi Soit says:

    The so-called president just tweeted that a so-called judge temporarily blocked his unconstitutional travel ban.

  12. Honi Soit says:

    And now for the latest. The so-called president appealed the ruling arguing that the judiciary was “second-guessing” his judgment. Imagine that: One branch of the federal government checking the power of another. What gall.

    The appeals court was unimpressed with the so-called president’s “reasoning” and rejected his appeal.

  13. Rick says:

    I think the President will prevail. There’s a lot of precident for restricting regional immigration.

    I haven’t read Washington State’s Motion for a TRO, but I heard that “standing” was supposedly established by claiming that the state was negatively affected because they had Middle Eastern students in their public universities. This is a thin- very thin- position, and I don’t think it will hold up to lengthy scrutiny.

    Of course, it is possible that none of it will matter. Trump has already started reformulating vetting procedures, and you can bet they’ll be considerably more stringent. Remember, the TRO applies only to those who already possess visas, and presumably, have already been vetted (although under Obama, “vetting” meant checking for a pulse).

  14. Honi Soit says:

    The so-called president wants to cut regs on the financial sector. Why is that? Because his crony friends can’t get loans. His tiny palms looked kinda greasy.

    “We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine, who have nice businesses who can’t borrow money. They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow, because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank,”

  15. Honi Soit says:

    The so-called president tweeted a criticism of Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka’s line. The company cited declining sales. Whine, whine, whine.

    “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!”

  16. Honi Soit says:

    And now he has re-tweeted the same Nordstrom tweet to the OFFICIAL US govt’ POTUS Twitter account. FOUL!

  17. mouse says:

    It’s all about the tribal ego idea of winning for right wingers. No sense of what is right and wrong

  18. Honi Soit says:

    Washington burns under the bannon administration while Trump feeds on Twitter and TV. Sick.

  19. Honi Soit says:

    Honi soit sur Rob Arlett et ses collaborateurs.

  20. Rick says:

    Washington burns…

    Good. Aren’t they the ones who gave us an incomprehensible $19-trillion debt?

    Trump was elected to utterly disrupt the status quo in Washington. Thirty of the fifty states sent him to the White House to do just that.

    I just love watching the sour looks on the faces of Socialist-Democrats as Trump’s cabinet appointments are rubber stamped into office. Do you think they rue the day that they changed the rules to allow cabinet appointments to be confirmed by a simple majority? Too bad and get used to it.

  21. mouse says:

    So when Trump and the Republicans dramatically increase the debt, you won’t be somehow rationalizing it and you will condemn them on principle or will you just root for your tribal ego to win and admit that’s all you really stand for stand

  22. Rick says:

    So when Trump and the Republicans dramatically increase the debt…

    Is that before or after he starts World War Three?

    Let’s wait and see just how much tax cuts and booming business “increase(s) the debt,” and then we’ll talk about it.

  23. Honi Soit says:

    The Toddler in Chief is busy tweeting again. Now he’s using caps to whine, whine, whine.

  24. Rick says:

    Funny, if it were Hillary tweeting daily, the fawning leftist press would be admiring her “fresh, new approach to utilizing technology as a means to communicate directly with the American people.”

    This is one reason why the press’ “approval rating” is at 18%- about that of 60’s Pravda.

  25. Honi Soit says:

    The Toddler in Chief has left governance to the Leninist Bannon. Drumpf prefers watching tv and tweeting when he’s not on the golf course.

  26. Rick says:

    …when he’s not on the golf course.

    All Trump does is work. The press and the Dems can’t keep up. They’re used to the time-honored politician’s three-hour-day and four-day work week. It’s about time they join the rest of America.

    When has Trump played golf? The press would have been there, right?

    I know we’re used to a golfing president- after all, Obama spent so much time at the golf course, members thought he was a caddy. It’s strange how a “man of the people” like BO would feel so comfortable at exclusive country clubs. Call it a manifestation of the “liberal” condition known as Castro Syndrome; “Of course I get more. After all, I must lead the people.”

  27. Honi Soit says:

    I didn’t say the Toddler in Chief was playing golf. I said he was on the golf course. Do read more carefully, Rick. There are at least several photos showing him with others on his golf courses since he took office.

    No, the press would not necessarily been there. They were BARRED from his Mar-a-Lego golf course on Feb 11 when he played with PM Abe of Japan.

    Trump is playing</b/ golf earlier into his term than did either Obama or Bush. Obama didn’t hit the course until more than three months after his inauguration.

Got something to say? Go for it!