Yet Another Chumph Travel Ban Bites the Dust

Falling faster than the criminals he appoints…

Federal Judge In Hawaii Blocks Trump’s Third Attempt At Travel Ban

A federal judge in Hawaii has partially blocked President Trump’s third attempt to restrict entry into the U.S. for citizens of certain countries.

The newest version of the “travel ban” was due to go into effect on Wednesday. Like two previous executive orders, it was challenged in multiple courts. The new ruling by Judge Derrick Watson is only one piece of the complicated legal puzzle over the long-term fate of the president’s efforts to limit travel to the U.S.

In his ruling, Watson wrote that the third version of the ban, like those before it, “lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States,’ “evidence that he says would be necessary for the ban to be enforceable.

As a result, he issued a temporary restraining order that will keep the ban from being enforced for six of the eight named countries — the six majority-Muslim nations. North Korea and Venezuela, which were added in the most recent version of the ban, are not affected by the ruling, and the restrictions on travel from those countries can go into effect.

The ruling in Hawaii v. Trump is the latest in the legal tug of war over Trump’s attempt to impose a ban on travelers from predominantly Muslim nations.

And it’s far from the end of the story. Another federal court is also expected to rule on the third version of the ban, and appeals are all but certain.

The original ban, signed by the president in the first week of his term, targeted seven countries — Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan — for 90 days. Syrian refugees were banned indefinitely. The ban also was imposed on lawful permanent residents, commonly known as green card holders, and travelers who had valid visas issued before the ban was to be implemented. That action met with immediate resistance as protestors flooded airports in major cities in support of travelers from those countries. Legal challenges to this first ban were successful as a federal district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked it.

In early March, Trump signed a new executive order. As NPR’s Joel Rose reported, “There are some key differences between Trump’s original order and this one. It only applies to people from six majority Muslim countries. Iraq has been dropped from the list. Lawful permanent residents or green card holders are explicitly exempt. So are travelers who already have valid visas. And refugees from Syria are no longer banned indefinitely, though the U.S. refugee program is still suspended for 120 days and the number of refugees admitted this year cut by more than half.

Watson, the judge in Hawaii, blocked that second travel ban too, saying that it was unconstitutional because it disfavored a particular religion. A court in Maryland came to the same conclusion. The parallel rulings were upheld by appellate courts.

That set the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. In late June, the justices allowed Trump’s travel ban to take partial effect, but it allowed people with “close familial relationships” with someone in the U.S. to enter the country.

The debate then turned on what familial relationships would be considered valid. The administration interpreted that decision as favoring only certain family members such as parents, spouses, children, adult sons or daughters, sons- and daughters-in-laws, siblings, and fiances.

Left out were grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people currently living in the United States.

In September, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the government couldn’t bar entry to grandparents and other extended family members. However, the Supreme Court did allow the administration to ban refugees even if they had formal ties to U.S. resettlement agencies.

Then, late last month, the president amended the travel ban, as NPR’s Brian Naylor reported:

“The latest version of the travel ban — version 3.0, if you will — limits travel from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen. The nations of Chad, North Korea and Venezuela have been added. And Sudan, which was part of the original ban, has been dropped.

“The new rules take effect October 18. And unlike previous versions, the new ban is not temporary. It will remain in place until the affected nations comply with stringent requirements for vetting their citizens before they can receive visas to enter the U.S.”

That’s the version of the ban has now been blocked from going into effect, nationwide — at least for now.

However, the state of Hawaii did not challenge the ban as it applies to North Koreans or Venezuelans. Therefore, the judge’s restraining order does not apply to those portions of the ban, which can be enforced starting tomorrow.

 

“Hail! Hail! The Witch is Dead!” – Republican Killercare Dies

Hopefully the end of this pathetic saga… And these clowns will get on with fixing the problems they caused in Obamacare trying to insert poison pills when the first Bill was passed.

 

Even the Chumph’s Dictator Heros Are Dumping Him

Damn…Used to be visiting the White House was an honor…Now even mass murderers don’t want to be associated with the Chump.

It would sully their reputations.

Duterte rejects Trump’s invitation to White House

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte reacted with his trademark candor to a U.S. lawmaker who promised to lead a protest against the firebrand leader should he visit the White House.

Duterte vowed he will never visit “lousy” America in his remaining time as president, or even afterward.

“I’ve seen America and it’s lousy…it would be good for the U.S. Congress to start with their own investigation of their own violations, of the so many civilians killed in the prosecution of the wars in the Middle East,” he said, according to Reuters.

Then, Duterte threatened to conduct the investigation himself: “Otherwise I will be forced to investigate you also. I will start with your past sins.”

His comments followed Massachusetts Representative James McGovern’s condemnation of the Filipino president’s so-called war of drugs, in which thousands of alleged drug dealers died in summary killings perpetrated by the authorities, and called for an independent investigation.

“I certainly believe very strongly that a man with the human rights record of Mr. Duterte should not be invited to the White House. If he comes, I will lead the protest,” McGovern said on Thursday at a hearing of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which he co-chairs.

McGovern was referring to an invitation President Donald Trump offered to his counterpart during a friendly phone call in April.

Trump congratulated Duterte for his “unbelievable job on the drug problem,” according to transcripts of the phone call published by the Intercept in collaboration with Rappler. In parting with Duterte, the U.S. president promised to visit the Philippines in November.

At the time of the phone call, the White House had given no indication of a date for the visit, and the Filipino leader had not publicly accepted—and he has now strongly declined.

 

CBC Refuses Second Meeting with Chumph

Not sure why they even bothered to send representatives to the first meeting – but it seems they have finally recovered from their usual comatose state.

What I would like to see is some disruption, delay, and delegitimization of the entire Republican House and the Chumph.

One of the ways that could start is with a walkout until Sessions is gone. A complete refusal to participate in a process which is inherently and purposefully racist.

 

Going Down for the 34th Time – CHumph Travel Ban

Yet another smackdown for the Chumph…

9th Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to reinstate Trump’s travel ban

Get this thug offa me!

A federal appeals court on Monday refused to lift a hold on President Trump’s revised travel order barring new visas for nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries.

The unanimous, unsigned ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest in a string of legal defeats the administration has suffered. The administration has said it will take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The travel order issue is already before the Supreme Court because of a separate ruling against Trump issued last month by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals based in Richmond, Va.

The 9th Circuit said Trump’s revised executive order failed to justify a need for the ban and violated a 1965 federal immigration law that bars discrimination based on nationality.

 

Chumph’s Muslim Travel Ban? Ninth Appellate Court…Nyet!

Smackdown! The first of the Chumph’s illegitimate Executive Orders just bit the dust!

9th Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to reinstate Trump’s Muslim travel ban

On Tuesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals conducted an hour-long phone hearing to determine the future of President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration. Namely, three federal judges determined whether a restraining order against Trump’s travel ban would remain in place. The court announced a decision on the ban on Thursday, Feb. 9 and ultimately ruled unanimously against reinstating the travel ban.

Trump’s executive order, signed on Friday Jan. 27, 2017, sought to temporarily ban U.S. entry to people traveling from seven majority-Muslim countries: Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria. The order would ban travel from those countries for 90 days and suspend the admission of refugees for 120 days. The day after signing his controversial order, thousands showed up to airports across the country in solidarity to protest what many referred to as an anti-Muslim ban.

Last week, the implementation of the travel ban was halted by a Seattle federal judge, which prompted a tweetstorm from the president. Trump tweeted on Feb. 4 in response to the restraining order, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

The legal battle continued this week as the Trump administration demanded an immediate reinstatement of the travel ban. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, upon hearing responses and counter-responses from both sides, decided against its reinstatement.

 

A Weak Case Against Discrimination

Not sure who the Chef here thought he was dealing with – but dealing with uber-rich south westerners is a bit of a different world. They generally aren’t real up-to-date on cultural sensitivities so what they say isn’t filtered through a lens of cultural or racial appropriateness. You need to take them literally, because they don’t always express themselves in filtered or culturally appropriate terms. They tend to regard personal relationships as more important. Develop and earn that relationship and you are a friend for life no matter what you are. Deal with  it. It doesn’t mean they are racist.

Have never met Mr. Pickens, but have worked for a company which competed against his – and he is a tough customer. I would not expect him to back down on principle, or in this case due to a weak case against his ex-wife.

T. Boone, and Madeline Pickens

I think this Chef was trying to make something…Out of nothing.

Lawsuit claims Nevada dude ranch owner asked chef for “black people food”

Madeleine Pickens wanted the African-American chef she recruited from the country club she owns in Southern California to cook “black people food” — not “white people food” — at her rural Nevada dude ranch and wild horse sanctuary, according to a federal lawsuit accusing her of racial discrimination.

Armand Appling says the wealthy philanthropist and ex-wife of Oklahoma energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens told him fried chicken, BBQ ribs and corn bread would be perfect for the tourists who pay nearly $2,000 a night to stay in plush cottages, ride horses and take Wild West “safaris” on ATVs at her Mustang Monument Wild Horse Eco-Resort.

Appling alleges he was fired 2014 in retaliation for complaining about a hostile work environment. He says Pickens’ stereotypical references were commonplace at the Elko County ranch stretching across 900 square miles on the edge of the Ruby Mountains about 50 miles west of the Utah line.

Among other things, he says Pickens, who is white, instructed him to terminate two other black kitchen staffers — one she referred to as her “bull” or “ox” and another who had “too much personality.” He says she told him they didn’t “look like people we have working at the country club” and didn’t “fit the image” of the staff she wanted at the ranch.

Pickens’ lawyers argue that even if all the allegations are true, none of her comments were racially motivated. At worst, Pickens’ remarks “reflect a non-racial personality conflict and amount to discourtesy, rudeness or lack of sensitivity,” they wrote in recent court filings.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du said during a hearing in Reno last week that Appling’s lawyers have failed so far to prove the sort of racial hostility needed to win such a civil rights claim. She dismissed the original lawsuit that was filed in February but gave them until Jan. 13 to refile an amended complaint seeking unspecified damages from Pickens’ nonprofit, Save America’s Mustangs.

“It takes a lot to prove these allegations,” Du told California attorney Willie Williams on Thursday.

Du agreed with Pickens’ lawyer, Dora Lane of Reno, that the only comment that specifically referred to race was the reference to “black people food.”

Lane said categorizing foods by ethnicity is commonplace in the restaurant industry. Some restaurants serve Mexican food, others Chinese or Thai food, she said.

“The suggestion that such categorizations are inherently offensive is nonsense,” Lane argued in earlier court documents. “This is especially true here, given that Pickens’ alleged comments actually reflect a preference for ‘black people food’ rather than a racial animas against ‘black people’ or ‘black people food.’”

Williams said Pickens’ comments about the fired employees “not fitting in” reinforces a long history of African-Americans not being allowed into elite, private-club settings. Pickens owns the exclusive Del Mar Country Club north of San Diego where Appling worked before she hired him for a 5-month stint in Nevada.

“In many cases, the people fighting to keep African-Americans out of these private clubs would use code phrases like ‘they do not fit the image,’” Williams said in court documents. He added the use of the words “ox” and “bull” implies ownership of property, given “America’s long history of slavery where they were considered personal property of their owners.”

Lane argued it was a complimentary reference to physical strength and “was not accompanied by any overtly racial slurs.”

“Indeed, Appling does not allege that he ever heard any overtly racial epithets, such as the ‘N-word,’” she wrote in court documents.

But Williams told the judge last week the comments must be viewed in the context of racial stereotypes.

Du agreed that Lane’s arguments focus on the “plain meaning of words” while seemingly ignoring the context of comments made about “African-Americans in history and stereotypes that could give rise to racial animas.”

“If the alleged comments were not directed at him, but others who look like him, it may affect his work environment,” the judge said.

 

No Trumpazoid Kids at DC Elite Schools

It seems the Trump’s dumb blonde advocate is about ready to find out exactly how inhospitable living in DC can be to the “dumbarati”. The DC area has some of the best private schools in the country. The sitting President’s children go the Private Schools for security reasons. Sidwell Friends is probably the best known, and is a highly selective school academically. Both of Obama’s daughters attended there. Other top schools academically are National Cathedral School, St. Albans School, Maret, Madiera (very international), Georgetown Prep, St. Anselm’s Abbey School, and Episcopal High School. Most of these schools offer some number of scholarships for academically gifted poor children, whose  parents can’y afford to fork over the $12,000 to $35,000 annual tuition. And, at schools like Sidwell, you cannot buy your way in. Several of the schools are endowed with enough money they really don’t give a damn who, or how rich mommy and daddy are, if the kid doesn’t have the academic chops…They don’t get in, period.

Selection of school depends on what your objective is:

1. If it is to have your child build relationships with future business and political leaders – it’s St Albans.
2. If it is to have your child build relationships with future International leaders, including perhaps Presidents of foreign countries – it’s Madiera.
3. If it is to have your child build relationships with future thought leaders and intellectuals of America – it’s Sidwell.

If the objective is to get your kid into the Ivy League Colleges – then it actually is one of the free public schools, Thomas Jefferson (IF your kid has near genius IQ), McLean, or Langley in Northern Virginia (If you can afford to live in the neighborhood where the average home is well over $1 million). About 13% of McLean kids wind up in the Ivy League.

Kellyanne Conway’s children have two strikes. They probably attended one of those right wing “christian Academies”, which leaves them about 4 years behind their grade level compared to any of the DC area’s elite public or private schools. She opposes almost every one of the tenets of the elite private schools on Diversity, opportunity, intellectualism, critical thinking, and world view. So why exactly would they be interested in taking on a dumbarati parent who is going to make trouble? Whining about their kid having to sit next to a black kid from the ghetto in class.A kid who, incidentally has an IQ about 50 points higher than Conway’s inbred get.

WTF wants the white trash?

Campus of Madiera School near Washington, DC.

 

The swamp of Washington’s elite private schools want to drain themselves of Kellyanne Conway’s kids

The future counselor of the president suggests her kids are struggling to gain enrollment at D.C. private schools

Kellyanne Conway successfully managed Donald Trump’s campaign all the way to the White House, but now she can’t even enroll her own children in a Beltway private school. Conway reportedly shared her concerns last week at her twins’ current private school in Englewood, New Jersey, telling parents that the Washington, D.C. elite were barring her kids’ admission.

According to Richard Johnson of Page Six, Conway believes prejudice against President-elect Donald Trump might prevent her children from receiving a private education.

Conway, who is set to be the counselor of the president, told Johnson: “I would not characterize myself as ‘worried’ so much as amused by the silence and sighs on the other end of the phone when friends and allies have made preliminary inquiries on our behalf.”

A source confirmed to Page Six that Conway is asking everyone with connections for help.

Conway took a tour of private schools in the D.C. area on Wednesday, but was reportedly disappointed with the double standards in the schools handbooks and websites, which all preach diversity and open-mindedness. Conway sardonically told Page Six: “For some, there is a comfort in sameness.”

But Conway’s right-wing views shouldn’t be a prohibiting factor. After all, D.C. is governed by conservative politicians and government workers.

Conway, a mother of four, is married to George Conway, who was the attorney who wrote the Supreme Court brief when Paula Jones sued former President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment.

At Madiera School the kids come from all over the world (they have dorms) – so the school is one of the most racially and ethnically mixed in the area. Some of the childrn are the daughters of foreign government officials including Ambassadors and officials in the World Bank and International Development Bank (IADB).

 

The End of College Admissions Racism

The Supreme Court, with it’s chief bigot thankfully dead, just drove a spike right through the racist vampire hearts of conservative segregationists with upholding race as a potential factor in determining college admissions. With scumsucker Scalia dead, the wheels just came off their re-segregation campaign.

Turns out the case in question, and the woman for whom it was started were a lie, and a liar from the start.

The claim by Abigail Fisher –

“There were people in my class with lower grades who weren’t in all the activities I was in, who were being accepted into UT, and the only other difference between us was the color of our skin,” she says. “I was taught from the time I was a little girl that any kind of discrimination was wrong. And for an institution of higher learning to act this way makes no sense to me. What kind of example does it set for others?”

The Truth –

Race probably had nothing to do with the University of Texas’s decision to deny admission to Abigail Fisher.

In 2008, the year Fisher sent in her application, competition to get into the crown jewel of the Texas university system was stiff. Students entering through the university’s Top 10 program — a mechanism that granted automatic admission to any teen who graduated in the upper 10 percent of his or her high school class — claimed92 percent of the in-state spots.

Fisher said in news reports that she hoped for the day universities selected students “solely based on their merit and if they work hard for it.” But Fisher failed to graduate in the top 10 percent of her class, meaning she had to compete for the limited number of spaces up for grabs.

She and other applicants who did not make the cut were evaluated based on two scores. One allotted points for grades and test scores. The other, called a personal achievement index, awarded points for two required essays, leadership, activities, service and “special circumstances.” Those included socioeconomic status of the student or the student’s school, coming from a home with a single parent or one where English wasn’t spoken. And race.

Those two scores, combined, determine admission.

Even among those students, Fisher did not particularly stand out. Court records showher grade point average (3.59) and SAT scores (1180 out of 1600) were good but not great for the highly selective flagship university. The school’s rejection rate that year for the remaining 841 openings was higher than the turn-down rate for students trying to get into Harvard.

As a result, university officials claim in court filings that even if Fisher received points for her race and every other personal achievement factor, the letter she received in the mail still would have said no.

It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino.Forty-two were white.

Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university that year. Also left unsaid is the fact that Fisher turned down a standard UT offer under which she could have gone to the university her sophomore year if she earned a 3.2 GPA at another Texas university school in her freshman year.

So it really was all about racism. Racism which scumbag Sclaia and Uncle Tommie Clarence were willing to stand behind.

Supreme Court upholds college affirmative action program

 

Race-based admissions policies in higher education dodged another bullet Thursday, with the Supreme Court ruling narrowly to uphold a program that helps minority students get into the University of Texas.

In a 4-3 decision, the court held that Texas’ program admitting some students based on consideration of their race is constitutional while cautioning that the university must continue to show that other means of addressing diversity have failed.

“The record here reveals that the university articulated concrete and precise goals (for example) ending stereotypes, promoting ‘cross-racial understanding,’ preparing students for ‘an increasingly diverse workforce and society,’ and cultivating leaders with ‘legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry’ — that mirror the compelling interest this Court has approved in prior cases,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

But the decision also suggests potential limits, warning the university cannot rely on the policy “without refinement” and that “it is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admission policies.”

Only seven justices participated in the decision. Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself for prior work on the case as United States solicitor general and the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat remains vacant.

The University of Texas enrolls 75 percent of its class by offering admission to students with top class ranks. It fills the remaining quarter of the class through a “holistic” review in which race is a factor.

The ruling directly affects all public colleges and universities. While private colleges have had more leeway to consider race in admissions, all institutions that accept federal financial aid are subject to Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act prohibiting racial discrimination, experts said.

Justice Samuel Alito read a withering dissent from the bench, saying the university had not done what the justices had asked when they sent the case back to a lower court in 2013. “The University has still not identified with any degree of specificity the interests that its use of race and ethnicity is supposed to serve,” he wrote in a minority opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Alito said the university “presents no evidence that its admissions officers, in administering the ‘holistic’ component of its plan, make any effort to determine whether an African-American, Hispanic or Asian-American student is likely to enroll in classes in which minority students are underrepresented.”

It would be unfortunate, he said, if other colleges and universities interpreted the court’s ruling as a green light to use race more in their admissions decisions.

Only eight states ban race-based admissions for public institutions, and affirmative action policies remain in wide use. Roughly 60 percent of the most selective four-year schools consider race in admissions, an American Council on Education survey found last year.

Two other admissions-related cases filed against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, both alleging they put Asian-Americans at a disadvantage, were on hold awaiting the Fisher v. University of Texas decision.

Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel of the American Council on Education, which represents college and university presidents, said the ruling doesn’t appear to change the expectations for colleges and universities.

“The good news about today is that schools that may visit or re-visit what they do and how they do it, in composing a diverse class, have the comfort of knowing that it’s acceptable to continue doing it,” McDonough said. “It’s appropriate for an institution to value the diversity of the campus environment and the student body.”

This was the second go-around for the Fisher case before the nation’s highest court. In 2013, Kennedy wrote the 7-1 opinion that sent jilted University of Texas applicant Abigail Fisher back to an appeals court, which upheld Texas’ admissions policy for a second time. Fisher, a white woman, argued the university’s rejection of her 2008 application violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause….

 

 

Canada Rejects Asylum for Kyle Lydell Canty

As reported back in September, Kyle Lydell Canty was trying to make the rather diaphanous case for Political Asylum in Canada based on his purported belief he would be murdered by the Police should he return to America. I have to believe this one was more on the “focus attention onto the issue” rather than any real expectation of being harmed – and insofar as his case has drawn a lot of press, it has been successful in making waves.

The Government of Canada isn’t buying it.

Canada rejects asylum plea from black American saying he wanted to escape police abuse

A Canadian tribunal has rejected a claim for refugee status from an African-American man who said he feared persecution and police abuse in the United States based on his race, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada said on Friday.

While saying he did find Kyle Lydell Canty to have a genuine fear of returning to his home country, adjudicator Ron Yamauchi said that was not enough to grant asylum.

A string of shootings of black men by U.S. police over the past 18 months have led to widespread protests and the issue has fueled a civil rights movement under the name Black Lives Matter.

“The Act does not protect claimants from every form of ill-treatment, suffering, and hardship,” he wrote in the decision, dated Dec. 3. “It is addressed at situations of persecution, which is serious harm, an interference with a basic human right.”

He added: “There are no substantial grounds to believe that his removal to the United States of America would subject him personally to a danger of torture.”

Canty filed for asylum in September after coming to Canada as a tourist.

It was not immediately possible to ascertain Canty’s whereabouts. He has the right to appeal the decision.

“If I receive a negative decision of my asylum application, I’m already 10 moves ahead as far as my appeal process goes,” Canty wrote in November. “The United States government is always murdering, undermining and underestimating its black citizens – and I have no intention of going back.”

 

Trump Dumped From Indy Pace Car

The Donald is beginning to find out exactly how treacherous political waters can be…

Especially when a candidate (him) descends into racism and lowbrow fearmongering.

Yet another place you won’t be seeing the Donald…

No Indy 500 Pace Car Drive!

Trump Bumped out of Indy 500 Pace Car

After facing increasing grass roots pressure, including a Facebook page with 17,500 likes urging his removal, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway announced today that Donald Trump has removed himself as driver of the Indianapolis 500 pace car in this years race. Quoted in The Indianapolis Star, Trump said the following:

“I very much appreciate the honor, but time and business constraints make my appearance there, especially with the necessary practice sessions, impossible to fulfill,” Trump said. “I look forward to watching the race from New York.”

This is the 2011 Indy Pace Car, a Camaro Drop-Top. Methinks the real reason Trump bailed on driving the car... Is the Comb-Over would never have survived!