Side Area
HomeAnn CoulterEvery Time I Try to Be Mad at Trump, the Media Pull Me Back

Every Time I Try to Be Mad at Trump, the Media Pull Me Back

Every time I try to be mad at Trump, the media reel me back in by launching some ridiculous, unprovoked attack. This time, it’s the fake news story about Trump “leaking” classified information to the Russkies.

The president can’t “leak” classified information: It’s his to declassify.

The big secret Trump allegedly revealed is that Muslims might try to blow up a plane with laptops. I already knew that. I read it in The New York Times.

The New York Times, March 22, 2017:

Devices Banned on Some Planes Over ISIS Fears

“Intelligence showing that the Islamic State is developing a bomb hidden in portable electronics spurred the United States and Britain on Tuesday to bar passengers from airports in a total of 10 Muslim-majority countries from carrying laptop computers … two senior American counterterrorism officials said. …”

This totally secret, Deep Throat-level information has been widely published in thousands of news outlets throughout the civilized world. There was yet another round of stories last week with the update that the U.S. is considering a laptop ban on flights from Europe as well.

Hey, you know what might make more sense than banning laptops? How about banning Muslims?

Bear with me here, I’m still working out the details, but I’m almost certain a federal judge in Hawaii can’t block a president’s temporary ban on Muslim immigration just because he’s testy with Trump over some campaign statements.

As Northwestern law professor Eugene Kontorovich explained in The Washington Post, courts have never examined a politician’s campaign statements for improper motive, because 1) campaigns are not part of the deliberative process; and 2) to start doing so would open the door to “examinations of the entire lives of political officials whose motives may be relevant to legal questions.”

Nonetheless, Kontorovich says, that is the legal argument being advanced against Trump’s travel ban: “Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws.”

To preserve their judicial coup, this Monday, the 9th Circuit sent out the geriatric ward to hear an appeal of the Hawaii judge’s absurd ruling. At their ages, there’s a good chance the judges will be dead by the time the Supreme Court overturns them.

Arguing against Trump’s exercise of his constitutional and statutory powers was first-generation American, Neal Katyal. (There are plenty of 10th-generation America-haters. You couldn’t get one of them to argue that we should end our country through mass immigration?)

At oral argument before the three wheezing gargoyles, Katyal announced that, before enforcing federal immigration laws passed by generations of Democrats and Republicans working together in Congress, the president of the United States is required to profess: “Islam is peace.”

There’s a new legal principle!

Asked by one of the crypt-keepers if Trump is the only president who would be prohibited from issuing this precise travel ban because of his statements about Muslims, the smarmy, preening, pretentious Katyal answered: “I think the most important point is, if you don’t say all these things, you never wind up with an executive order like this.”

As lawyers say: Nonresponsive!

But as long as we’re operating under these new rules for determining a U.S. president’s rights and responsibilities, how about looking at everything Trump has said about Muslims?

For example, may the courts consider this quote from September 2015?

Trump: “I love the Muslims. I think they are great people. … Would I consider putting a Muslim-American in my Cabinet? Oh, absolutely. No problem with that.”

Lawyers like Katyal aren’t telling the courts what Trump said; they’re telling courts their own crazy interpretations of what Trump said. No liberal is capable of accurately reporting Trump’s position because the left never understood his position in the first place. As Peter Thiel said, the media take Trump literally, but not seriously, while the people take him seriously, but not literally.

After the San Bernardino terrorist attacks in December 2015, Trump made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that we curtail our breakneck importation of Muslims, some of whom periodically erupt in murderous violence. The media concluded: TRUMP HATES MUSLIMS! Nothing Trump or anyone else said could persuade them otherwise.

Here’s what Trump actually said:

“What’s happened is, we’re out of control. We have no idea who’s coming into our country. We have no idea if they love us or if they hate us. … I have friends that are Muslims. They are great people. But they know we have a problem. They know we have a real problem. ‘Cause something is going on. And we can’t put up with it, folks. …

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. … Where the hatred comes from and why — we’ll have to determine, we’re going to have to figure it out. We have to figure it out. We can’t live like this. It’s going to get worse and worse. You’re going to have more World Trade Centers. …”

Throughout the campaign, Trump supporters tried in vain to explain the so-called “Muslim ban” to a hostile media dead set on interpreting everything out of Trump’s mouth in the ugliest possible way. For example, our general policy on Muslim immigration would be “No, thanks!” but there would be exceptions. So Charles Krauthammer can stop worrying about King Abdullah of Jordan.

In March, Trump supporter Andy Dean told a dense CNN anchor:

“He’s talking about the culture of Islam in the Middle East. … We love Muslims in America and they love us. Why? We have a great culture that respects women’s rights. … The thing about Muslims in the Middle East is they don’t respect women’s rights. If a woman wants to get a divorce in the Middle East, that woman could be killed. If you want to leave the religion of Islam in the Middle East, you can be killed. It’s very real.”

To the same blockhead anchor, Trump supporter Kayleigh McEnany had to fill in an edited quote the network had just shown of Trump:

“It’s important to know what happened 15 seconds later. Anderson Cooper said to him, ‘Are you speaking of radical Islam or are you speaking of Islam?’ He said radical; sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference, though. So he did say radical Islam. He said it repeatedly during his campaign. He said, ‘I have Muslim friends. I love the Muslim people.’ …”

One of Trump’s vast number of African-American supporters told HLN’s Drew Pinksy:

“I love what (Trump) is doing with the Muslims getting out of the country, because if they really knew what that was about — if they knew that that was about freedom. It was about freedom versus enslavement.”

He’s right. It’s not about religion. It’s not about nationality. It’s about hitting the pause button on bringing in radical Islam’s dysfunctional, misogynist, violent, exploding-airplane culture.

The voters understood Trump. (At least some of us did — barely enough of us to elect him president!) Liberals didn’t. But now the courts are blocking Trump’s exercise of presidential powers based on the left’s own idiotic misinterpretations of what he said.

COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER, DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
mm
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter is an American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist, and lawyer. She frequently appears on television, radio, and as a speaker at public and private events.
  • justinwachin

    The Constitution doesn’t grant foreigners the right to enter our country. There is nothing wrong with President Trump’s executive order. He is carrying out a task that Congress granted him through legislative action.

    Unlike President Trump and Congress, the unelected judge in Hawaii will never have to face the voters to keep his job. It is also unlikely that Hawaii will be the target of a terrorist attack. A terrorist will get more coverage flying a plane into a massive skyscraper than into a coconut tree on an island in the Pacific Ocean.

    • Jeanne Stotler

      There are military bases on the Hawaiian Islands and in the Pacific, one is Quam. Remember Pearl Harbor, I do and have seen the bullet holes (still there) from the strafing, the oil still arising from the “Arizona”, wherever anyone hits a part of AMERICA, it’s a hole in our heart.(Of AMERICA)

      • justinwachin

        I remember Pearl Harbor. The point I was making is today’s terrorists are more likely to go for a metropolitan area on the mainland where they can get a lot of instant media coverage of their action. I doubt many terrorists are going to try to fly a plane into a country store 200 miles from a major city for the same reason–it would not get as much press coverage.

        • Jeanne Stotler

          I live in DC and know some of what is in Hawaii and near by, NK would love to destroy this, as would some ISIS, there is one island solely Military, no TV or phones, only communication is thru radio, son spent a monththere and thanked God for a portable CD Player and a stack of movies and shows for his off time.

    • rich wojcik

      FU.BAR ack ignored courts orders; can’t Trump do the same?

      • Firewagon

        You are spot on about FUBAR. At least as I recall the Marine Corps’ definition. That is absolutely what we have going on today. When ONE unelected ‘Supreme Leader’ judge can shut down an absolutely Constitutional rendering from The President of The United States, let the slaughter begin!

  • OhioHomeowner

    It’s been reported that one of the district judges asked, “”How is a court to know if it is in fact a Muslim ban in the guise of national security justifications?” asked Gould,…” I think a good progressive would look at [disparate] numerical impact of the ban on worldwide Muslim population. And what do we see, the majority of Muslims are not affected. So, it’s not a Muslim ban.

  • scruffyleon

    It’s not that the Lefties don’t understand Trump, it is that they don’t want any of Trump’s policies or ideas to succeed.

  • LiberalFascist

    Anyone expecting the 9th circus or any part of the appeals process to use common sense, or follow the rule of law are crazy.
    These people base every decision on what is bad for America, and what is good for globalism.
    With NO to America being 95 % of their decisions.
    Maybe N Korea will do us a favor and drop a nuke on that bastion of liberal-Fascism..San Fransisco

    • Bruce Kent

      that 95% number is about the same as 9th’s overturn rate by SCOTUS.

      • Name

        But since SCOTUS takes only about 4% of all petitions from 50 states, the majority of the 95% remain unchallenged.

        • Bill Von Gremp

          Actually, only 3% of 9th Circuit decisions get overturned each year but because they are a huge Court they make decisions on thousands of cases. That being said, 3% sounds low but is actually twice what it is for the other Circuit Courts.

          • Firewagon

            Hated phrase: The Bottom Line still reads, that radical 9th outfit is the “most overturned court in the U.S.!”

  • rich wojcik

    HE is the bossss!
    He can say practically anything and it will be legal, you red pressitutes and urinalists at MSM!

  • WBC

    The media nincompoops are being snowed by the Progressives. If they accomplish their goal of destroying our free republic in favor of a socialist monarchy then they will be thrown under the bus and will be under to thumb of dictators just as they were in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. In those times media people did the will of the dictators or suddenly disappeared without a trace. Sad thing about that is, the rest of us will be subject to the same tyranny.

  • Another Guest

    Nail,head,good work Ann

  • Jerryb53

    Spot on Ann.

  • Bob

    Of course Ann is right.

  • Firewagon

    “….bar passengers from airports in a total of 10 Muslim-majority countries….” The United States and Britain are “barring?” How can that be? There has to be at least ‘one Judge’ to keep the U.S., they might actually attempt to include Britain, from doing any such dastardly thing, no? 10 Muslim-majority countries? 10 Muslim-majority countries??!! Holy flying magpie doodoo, Batman, Trump only wanted 7 countries banned, this has to be easily stopped by just half a judge!