- The Washington Times - Friday, May 26, 2017

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit shot down yet another attempt by President Donald Trump to control and limit travelers to this country from terror hot spots in the world.

Why? The majority said Trump’s campaign rhetoric seemed anti-Muslim. And despite the fact his travel ban order doesn’t talking about banning the religion, judges, with a 10-3 voice, went with the rhetoric, not the facts. 

It’s like the court’s lefties just can’t get enough of Russian roulette — the game that’s basically being played with America’s border security and the open door approach the left wants to keep intact, regardless of terror and security concerns.

My gosh, we just saw a terror bombing of children at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, claimed by ISIS — by ISIS terrorists who’ve managed to take advantage of U.K. border and intelligence breaches to hide their evil devises. If the blasting of children into bits of body parts doesn’t send a signal that, hey, maybe we ought to tighten up the border security in our own country a bit — what does?

Likely, only a hit that hits home for the left. In other words, the 10 judges who just voted against Trump’s order restricting travel and immigration from six terror-tied nations will only change their minds and see the nonsense in their arguments if they’re touched personally by an act of terror — by a border breach that results in a terrorist striking, say, one of their own young daughters.

Not wishing it. Just saying: Entrenched leftists only do the sensible thing when they’re jolted into seeing the light. Just as a committed anti-gun activist will finally embrace the Second Amendment once an armed burglar or attacker strikes his or her own home, these liberal 4th Circuit judges will likely only see the common sense need for Trump’s travel ban if one of their own family members is blown to bits by an ISIS-inspired terrorist, a la Manchester attack.

Nothing like reality to give one a realistic view of policy.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, thank goodness, is digging in on the ban, vowing to go forward with the court battle to enact it.

“This Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the power and duty of the executive branch to protect the people of this country from danger,” he wrote in response to the 4th Circuit’s decision. “[We] will see review of this case in the United States Supreme Court.”

Hopefully, there, common sense will be found. After all, if a White House can’t defend its borders from enemies, both foreign and domestic, then that’s a president who can’t uphold the basic tenets of his office. 

Temporarily banning individuals from six known terror hot spot countries from entering U.S. borders is not a case of religious discrimination. The fact the terror hot spots are mostly Muslim is simply due to the fact that followers of Islam are responsible for most of the terror attacks around the world. Denying that basic fact — catering and cowering to the likes of the Muslim lobbyists, like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the leftist, open border advocates — is simply hanging out a sign for terrorists at our borders that reads: “Welcome.” And it’s a sure fire way to ratchet up chances of a Manchester hitting America, and much sooner than later.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide