Looks Like Whoopi Goldberg Put On Her “Thinking Cap” Again

by Diane Rufino, June 28, 2018

On this morning’s airing of “The View” (the show with cackling, often deranged, liberal women), Whoopi Goldberg addressed Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy’s resignation and her concerns over President Trump’s chance to pick a replacement for him. Apparently that news sent her into a frenzy. Using the opportunity to advocate for abortion rights (of which a woman has complete control over her right to terminate for any reason, and at any time, the life growing inside her), she launched into a tirade: “Get out of my vagina! If you take away my right away from me, I got a problem with that…..  You don’t want people to take your guns?  So get out of my behind. Get out of my vagina. Get Out.”

Let’s do a reality check, Whoops, shall we?  The Bill of Rights EXPRESSLY recognizes the right to have and bear arms in the Second Amendment. It’s historical roots are deep and firmly grounded. Let me look where the Bill of Rights recognizes the right of a woman to have complete control over her reproductive capability….  Hold on…  I’m looking…    Wait…  I’m still looking…..

It’s not there. A liberal (VERY LIBERAL, and socially progressive) Supreme Court pulled some legal magic and slight of hand to find that right. And let’s not kid ourselves. The facts and history behind the case (including commentary by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and later by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) show that the decision was made essentially for two reasons: (1) to give women the flexibility they need to compete as equals to men in the workforce (a pesky pregnancy or an unwanted child can certainly get in the way!); and (2) to deal with all the unwanted pregnancies that would overwhelm our social programs.  The right to an abortion wasn’t so much about a right as it was about a solution.

Whoopi has nothing to fear from a conservative court.  A woman’s right to an abortion will not be taken away. It is too firmly entrenched in our society, much like the Miranda Warning is and much like the concept of the “Wall of Separation” is, both of which are legal fictions. And it is a very effective solution to an obvious social problem, albeit a heinous and unconscionable one. But what a conservative court might do is question the wisdom, the immorality, and the inhumanity of the broad right granted to women. A future court might address the conflict in such a policy when our very founding documents identify the right to life as one of man’s greatest inalienable rights. How do we reconcile that core American ideal with the right of a woman (and then a doctor) to terminate what is clearly a human life?  A conservative court might, one day, put strict limits on the right to an abortion so that two lives enjoy the rights guaranteed here in America.

The whole of politics doesn’t have to come down to the security of a woman’s unfettered and unlimited so-called right to terminate a life growing inside her. And it shouldn’t.  And I would like to think that women are capable of engaging in the political arena on issues that are far more important. They used to care about issues such as education, taxes, jobs, safety; they used to care about the issues that made it easier to raise their families, own a home, have job security, send their kids to college, save money, and be able to retire comfortably.

Whoopi has a limited understanding of the Constitution, which I suppose is a whole lot better than most Democrats, who have no understanding of it. I’m glad the organizers of the Women’s March in DC last January encouraged marchers to wear those funky Vagina caps (“pussy hats”). Putting those bright pink caps on their heads covered up the real pink matter that usually does one’s thinking – the brain. And it was totally fitting that they did so because the women (if you can even call some of them that) at that march DON’T think with their brains. Instead, they are only capable of thinking with their vaginas.

Whoopi showed us once again how true that is.

Whoopi attended the Women’s March in DC. She wore a pussy hat. And even more, she wore a shirt announcing how “nasty” she is.

Wow, women sure have progressed over the years.

THE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP’S TRAVEL BAN !!

by Diane Rufino, June 26, 2018

Today, the Supreme Court handed down its “opinion” in the case challenging Trump’s Travel Ban (Trump v. Hawaii), and it rejected the decision of the uber liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which struck the ban down as exceeding the president’s power under the Immigration & Nationality Act and as violating the Establishment Clause by selectively denying entry into the US to Muslims.

BACKGROUND:  In September 2017, President Trump issued Proclamation No. 9645 (the “Travel Ban,” aka, the “Muslim Travel Ban”), seeking to improve vetting procedures for foreign nationals traveling to the United States by identifying ongoing deficiencies in the information needed to assess whether nationals of particular countries present a security threat. The 12-page Proclamation is more detailed than any prior order issued under the Immigration & Nationality Act [codified at 8 US Code §1182(f)]. The Proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight countries whose systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals the President deemed inadequate. Countries were selected for inclusion based on a review undertaken pursuant to one of the President’s earlier Executive Orders. As part of that review, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the State Department and intelligence agencies, developed an information and risk assessment “baseline.”  DHS then collected and evaluated data for all foreign governments, identifying those having deficient information-sharing practices and presenting national security concerns, as well as other countries “at risk” of failing to meet the baseline.

After a 50-day period during which the State Department made diplomatic efforts to encourage foreign governments to improve their practices, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that eight countries –Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen — remained deficient. She recommended entry restrictions for certain nationals from all of those countries but Iraq, which had a close cooperative relationship with the U. S. She also recommended including Somalia, which met the information-sharing component of the baseline standards but had other special risk factors, such as a significant terrorist presence. After consulting with multiple Cabinet members, the President adopted the recommendations and issued the Proclamation.

The Proclamation (the Travel Ban) was challenged as unconstitutional by the State of Hawaii, three individuals with foreign relatives affected by the entry suspension, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii. They alleged that the Ban  violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Establishment Clause. The District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the restrictions. That is, the court “enjoined” or prevented the administration from putting the Ban into effect. Trump appealed the decision, which went to the 9th Circuit, and as expected, the 9th Circuit affirmed. It argued that the Ban contravened or conflicted with two sections of the Immigration & Nationality Act, or INA (§1182(f) and §1152(a)(1)(A).

1182(f) authorizes the President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds” that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and §1152(a)(1)(A) provides that “no person shall . . . be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” [The 9th Circuit did not address the Establishment Clause claim].

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, can be summarized by the following portions of the opinion:

(1)  The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States.

(a)  Common sense and historical practice confirm that §1152(a)(1)(A) does not limit the President’s delegated authority under §1182(f). Presidents have repeatedly exercised their authority to suspend entry on the basis of nationality. According to plaintiffs’ logic, the President would not be permitted to suspend entry from particular foreign states in response to an epidemic, or even if the United States were on the brink of war. The language of the statute is clear. By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with “ample power” – near “plenary power” – to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA.

(b)  The Proclamation falls well within this comprehensive delegation. The sole prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President “find that the entry of the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here. He first ordered DHS and other agencies to conduct comprehensive evaluation of every single country’s compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline. He then issued a Proclamation with extensive findings about the deficiencies and their impact. Based on that review, he found that restricting entry of aliens who could not be vetted with adequate information was in the national interest.

(c)  The Proclamation comports with the remaining textual limits in §1182(f). While the word “suspend” often connotes a temporary deferral, the President is not required to prescribe in advance a fixed end date for the entry restriction. Like its predecessors, the Proclamation makes clear that its “conditional restrictions” will remain in force only so long as necessary to “address” the identified “inadequacies and risks” within the covered nations. Finally, the Proclamation properly identifies a “class of aliens” whose entry is suspended, and the word “class” comfortably encompasses a group of people linked by nationality.

(2)  Plaintiffs allege that the primary purpose of the Proclamation was religious animus and that the President’s stated concerns about vetting protocols and national security were but pretexts for discriminating against Muslims. At the heart of their case is a series of statements by the President and his advisers both during the campaign and since the President assumed office. The issue, however, is not whether to denounce the President’s statements, but the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, the Court must consider not only the statements of a particular President (once in office), but also the authority of the Presidency itself.

(3)  The admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a US citizen. That review is limited to whether the Executive gives a “facially legitimate and bonafide” reason for its action, but the Court need not define the precise contours of that narrow inquiry in this case. For today’s purposes, the Court assumes that it may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review (least stringent form of review for constitutionality), which asks whether the entry policy is plausibly related to the Government’s stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. Plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence may be considered, but the policy will be upheld so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.

Plaintiffs challenge the entry suspension based on their perception of its effectiveness and wisdom, but the Court cannot substitute its own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters.

Accordingly, the government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review and therefore the Proclamation (the Travel Ban) is upheld.

With today’s rejection and reversal of the 9th Circuit’s decision, the Trump administration has the green light to move forward with its ban. It can now go into effect.

 

Reference:  Trump v. Hawaii opinion (June 26, 2018) – https://www.scribd.com/document/382622622/Trump-v-Hawaii#from_embed

We May Be Great, But Can We Also Be Good?

by Diane Rufino, June 25, 2018

I’ve been really troubled by all the hate and all the vitriol and all the race-baiting coming from the likes of Maxine Waters and coming from those in Hollywood, in the Entertainment Industry, and in the mainstream media. The harassment, the inciting of harassment (which we all know will lead to violence, just as it did on the softball field last year at the annual Congressional softball game), the targeting, the vilification, the name-calling, the death wishes and the wishes for physical harm, the treating of fellow Americans with contempt and without due respect is uncalled for and uncivilized. We are Americans and are supposed to be tolerant and respectful. We are supposed to be the example to the world of how freedom liberates the human soul and spirit and inspires one to great heights. We are not supposed to be the example of how a country predicated on human freedom is ultimately destructive of itself.

President Trump is without a doubt making the changes and implementing the policies that are making America Great Again. When America is great, the opportunities are passed on to ALL Americans. So let’s not pretend that Trump is not good for this country.

Yes, we are becoming Great Again. We can all take pride in that. We thought that after the Bush and Obama years, it would almost be impossible to see the country turn around so quickly and successfully. But Trump has made it happen.

The greater challenge, as it turns out, may be to put our differences aside, put our grievances, and put our personal agendas aside, and treat each other once again with love and respect. In other words, can we be good again?

In that spirit, I made the following meme.

 

Next to the Democrat Party, the Entertainment Industry is the Largest Hate Group in the US

 

by Diane Rufino, June 24, 2018

I made this meme this morning. With all the extreme haters in Hollywierd and in the Entertainment Industry – Robert DeNiro, Meryl Streep, Barbra Streisand. Jimmy Kimmel, Peter Fonda, Jim Carrey, Samantha B, Kathy Griffin, Ashley Judd, Tom Arnold, Jennifer Lawrence, Kevin Costner, J Lo, Alec Baldwin, the cast of SNL, Jay Z, Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, and more – I think it’s about time we call them out for what they are.

Under the Obama administration, Homeland Security was instructed to divert its attention away from true radicals such as Islamic jihadists and away from true hate groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, or white supremacy groups, and instead, focus its attention on conservatives.

On April 7, 2009, an unclassified assessment by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” was adopted by the Obama administration — a mere 77 days after his inauguration. The document was leaked shortly after its release to law enforcement officials across the country and made public by Roger Hedgecock on April 13, 2009. It laid out the new president’s legislative and executive priorities on terrorism, guns and immigration. Uniquely combining these three issues would become a predictable, coordinated pattern during Obama’s two terms in office. It would define the Tom Ridge and Janet Napolitano eras at the DHS. As Eli Lake, a journalist and the former senior national security correspondent for The Daily Beast and Newsweek, wrote the day after the document was leaked, “Since its inception in 2003, the department has focused primarily on radicalization of Muslims and the prospect of homegrown Islamist terrorism.” Under Obama’s leadership, attention was directed away from Muslims and Islamist terrorism and redirected towards limiting the Second Amendment, scrutinizing military veterans and expanding both legal and illegal immigration.

For political reasons, decent and honest Americans, whose only “flaws” were to believe in the ideals of our country and to be smart enough to understand the breadth and meaning of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, were targeted by the government and put under its microscope and its harassment and enforcement power. As we know full well now, this is just one example of how Obama used the full power of the US government to silence political opponents.

If Homeland Security had been programmed to look at conservatives as hate groups and potential terrorists, how much more convincing is it to make the argument that Democrats, BLM groups, progressives/liberals, and anti-fascist groups are the real potential terrorists and the real threats to our ordered society here in the United States. Obviously, as we are seeing their hatred play out – on the stage, in their businesses, in videos, in tweets, on the streets, in front of private homes, at Congressional baseball games, etc – safety requires it.

Anyway, I’ve had it with actors, actresses, other members of the entertainment industry, including musicians and singers (except country music). I’m tired of their hatred, their foul language, their holier-than-thou attitudes, their loathing of this country, their attacks on our president and his family (no conservative group did that to the criminal, Obama), and their commitment to everything good and decent that the average person values. I’m boycotting them. I’m boycotting their movies, boycotting their shows, and boycotting their concerts (except those who support America). I’ll boycott them even though everyone knows how much my life revolves around movie releases and concerts. And everyone knows and how much I love to promote them all and write and publish reviews for those I enjoy. It will make me sad to look for other ways to be entertained, but I’ll gladly to do to exercise my First Amendment right of free expression.

Please Join Me. Send the haters the only message that matters to them — send them to irrelevancy. Affect their box office successes.

 

Reference:  A.J. Caschetti, “Department of Homeland Security Targeting the Wrong Enemy,” Gatestone Institute, July 26, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8549/dhs-rightwing-extremism