BloggeRhythms

Although Howard Kurtz is more a gossip columnist than political reporter or analyst, he provided some significant insights @FoxNews.com this morning about the ongoing debate over President Trump’s immigration shutdown.  

First and foremost, Kurtz notes that reaction on the issue has been “emotional” and as a result, the need for better vetting to stop terrorists from coming into this country by posing as refugees or overstaying their visas is being overlooked. However, what Kurtz didn’t mention is that most of the hysterics have come from Democrats who simply refuse to take an intelligent approach to addressing an extremely serious, threatening situation.  

Then there's the fact that Obama banned Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011 (though the parallels are not exact), “and that the seven predominantly Muslim countries covered by the order were identified by the Obama administration.” The orders also extended to green card holders, who after extensive review are deemed legal U.S. residents. 

So, here again Democrats will soon have to face another embarrassment whereas while the new POTUS is taking needed steps as protections against potential internal terrorist threats, leaders such as Schumer and Warren are tearing up and demanding unbridled entry by anyone,regardless.    

Further compounding the Democrats problem is that they’ve blown the situation significantly out of proportion, whereas: “On the Sunday shows, Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer made the point that 109 people were detained out of the 325,000 traveling that day.” 

As far as the method for implementing the ban is concerned: Trump tweeted yesterday that “if the ban were announced with a one week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad ‘dudes’ out there!” 

As a practical matter, it would matter little what steps had been taken, because the left aided by the MSM, would have found grounds for complaint anyway. So it certainly looks like Trump took an entirely logical and effective approach to the situation.   

In that regard, National Review opined that: ”The instant backlash, which has culminated in thousands of protesters creating chaos at the nation’s airports, is the result more of knee-jerk emotion than a sober assessment of Trump’s policy.” 

Slate took the other side, saying the order “gravely threatens not only American values but also U.S. security interests…American armed forces, after all, are conducting military operations of some sort—from ground combat and airstrikes to special-operations missions—in all but one of those seven countries (Iran). The local soldiers they’re fighting alongside or advising—and the local people who are tolerating their presence—are likely to turn distrustful, possibly hostile, if the American president is telling them that under no circumstances will they be allowed to come into our country because they might be terrorists 
 
“In other words, with this order—which has come under major protest from citizens, judges, and many legislators—Trump is making it harder to defeat ISIS by telling the allies and main forces in that fight that they aren’t good enough to set foot in America.” 

However, Slate’s premise is not only ridiculous, it also takes the facts of the matter totally out of context. Because the ban isn’t forever, it’s only a ninety-day pause allowing for prudent evaluation of the risks to the nation and what can be done to eliminate them. Which is exactly what Obama did for twice as long. 

Thus, as time proves Trump to be correct, the left has painted itself further into their rapidly shrinking corner.  

Additional hints of Trump’s long-term probability of success can be found in an article by Nigel Duara, Contact Reporter, @latimes.com via Drudge. In his piece, Durara points out that citizens living in or nearby areas immediately affected by illegals, are more than pleased with the new president’s actions. 

While objectors like Schumer up in New York are incensed, those actually in the middle of the problem 120 miles from the border feel quite differently. “Arizona voters outraged with President Obama’s executive orders that welcomed the foreign-born to America are delighted with Trump’s first week in office, when his actions seemed to have done the opposite.” 

A young mother, 36 year old Tara Jenkins, acknowledged initial fear that Trump wouldn’t live up to “traditional conservative values” saying “I was, frankly, worried about what Trump would do.” 

Not knowing whether Trump would act on his campaign promises or simply change his mind after his inauguration, she’s been happy with his directives saying: “It’s everything he said he wanted to do, and that’s something we needed. 

And then she described the situation perfectly, saying that although she’s not sure yet whether Trump’s executive orders will immediately secure the border, and doesn’t want to see refugees in genuine need turned away from the U.S., she “wonders how it’s possible to tell which refugees are truly seeking asylum and which ones intend to do the nation harm.” 

And that’s what Trump understands clearly as crystal and is trying to find a way to resolve above all else.  

Another resident, Doyle MacCree, 84, of Goodyear, a conservative suburb west of Phoenix, and other voters here, feel that while Trump perhaps hasn’t yet gone far enough, they say give it time. They correctly boil it down to Trump’s having “uncomplicated solutions to what they see as uncomplicated problems.”

Additionally: “MacCree doesn’t believe Trump will stop at a wall. Such a promise was only the beginning of a new era in U.S. policy, he said, a projection of strength to countries that had begun to take America’s openness for granted.  

“It’s his law now,” MacCree said about Trump. “A wall will just stop [border crossers] a little, get in the way. 

“We’ll see what the next step is. I know he’s got one.” 

And that pretty much sums the Democrats problem up whereas while they immediately react negatively to any and all steps the new POTUS takes, the voters actually involved support Trump wholeheartedly.   

Above and beyond the support coming from those already in the new POTUS’s corner, additional backing came from a very surprising source, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz. 

Ian Hanchett reported @breitbart.com that last night, on CNN’s “Out Front,” Dershowitz reacted to “Acting Attorney General Sally Yates’ announcement that the DOJ will not present arguments in defense of President Trump’s immigration order by saying Yates made a “serious mistake” and has “made a political decision, rather than a legal one.” 

“Dershowitz stated Trump should “just ignore” Yates and ask the court to appoint a special defense attorney to defend the order, because the president “has a right to have his actions defended. If I’m a judge, I’m going to say some of the statute’s unconstitutional, as it applies to green card holders, as it applies maybe to people who are in the country, but maybe not so much as it applies to people who are seeking visas, but may be in violation of a statute.

"These are hard questions, and we shouldn’t be treating them with a blunderbuss. We should be treating them with a scalpel.” 

And then, presenting a conclusion similar to many that have been offered here regarding Trump’s modus operando, Dershowitz said: “You respond to Twitter with nuance, and that’s why I think Sally Yates made a mistake. She played into his hands, instead of responding in an intelligent, sophisticated, calibrated way.” 

Which is precisely what’s Trump’s done all along to date. Knowing full well how Democrats, particularly ones like Schumer, Pelosi and Warren, will react he throws them something to fiercely object to.  

And while Democrats keep rounding up the troops, chasing their tails and running in circles of outrage, Trump and his people are quietly taking care of business in the background. Forcing the top Democrats to continue making blithering fools of themselves completely. 
 
That’s it for today folks.

Adios