Muslim Travel Ban Foiled Again

[Inertialmass]

We all knew, liberal and conservative, nonreligious and religious, that Trump's campaign s**t talk was outright, plain-as-day unconstitutional. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

?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.?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

And we all knew that Trump's Zionist trickster Stephen Miller had admitted right aloud, like a high school kid bragging in the hallway about his plans for a destructive prank, that he and his buds would need to cloak this illegal religious apartheidism inside secular/political guise.

It isn't working.  In fact Team Trump started right off knowingly insulting the legal world by presenting something that looks exactly like an illegal duck, swims like an illegal duck, and quacks like an illegal duck -- as an executive order targeting not the nations with a history of exporting terrorism but rather targeting Muslim nations Trump and Zionist trickster Stephen Miller don't particularly like.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/25/trump-travel-ban-blocked-federal-appeals-court

Block on Trump travel ban upheld by federal appeals court

Thursday 25 May 2017

Court upheld ruling that attempts to curb immigration from Muslim majority countries are grounds for violation of equal protection clause of the constitution

A federal appeals court has ruled against reinstating Donald Trump?s revised travel ban ? marking yet another major setback for the administration?s attempts to curb immigration from six Muslim majority countries.
 
The Virginia-based fourth circuit of appeals on Thursday upheld a March ruling from a Maryland district court, which found grounds that the ban violated the equal protection clause of the US constitution.

The revised ban has also been blocked with an even broader injunction by a federal court in Hawaii, meaning the administration has been fighting in two separate appeals courts.

As the ninth circuit has yet to rule on the Hawaii decision, even if the fourth circuit had ruled in favour of the Trump administration the president would not have been able to implement the ban...

[davdi]

So, why didn't we hear about it when Obama did the same thing? 

Another one of the liberal lies was that it was anti-Islam.  So Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, Sudan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, ad nauseum are not Islamic countries.   

Besides, the vetting process is fairly long, if only liberals would enforce them, but they won't.  That way theynget to continue their lies and their appearance as supporters of victims.  Not only are blacks the victims of their racist policies, but when they get their way, only the privileged people will not be victims. 

This from Wiki

"The Obama connection

The travel part of Trump?s order does target the same seven countries that were singled out with a law Obama signed in December 2015.

The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they can?t use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors.

The law was soon expanded by Obama?s Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agency?s announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law."


Now we can begin the discussion. 

[Inertialmass]

^^^^  That fallacious comparison was hashed over and debunked four months ago.  We're talking about today.  Today multiple independent judges in multiple independent courtrooms have ruled that the Trump Team religious bias is overt and unconstitutional.  Had Obama actually invoked anything similar it would have been challenged and struck down by these very same judges and courts.

Comparisons between a 2011 Obama administration slowdown on processing Iraqi visas and President Trump's stay on immigration from seven countries are inaccurate.

CLAIM

President Obama banned immigration from Iraq for six months in 2011, but the media buried the story.

EXAMPLES
Collected via e-mail, January 2017


So I am finding people defending the recent travel ban that Donald Trump issues, by saying that Barrack Obama did the a similar thing in 2011. Trying to look information about this, I found two news articles that takes the stand as towards what the differences were. I find myself wondering how accurate is any of this information?

obama banned refugees from iraq in 2011
     
RATING

MOSTLY FALSE

WHAT'S TRUE


In 2011 the State Department's issuance of SIVs to Iraqi applicants slowed after two individuals in Kentucky were identified as having possibly been improperly screened; multiple national news outlets reported on the State Department visa processing slowdown while it was occurring and in subsequent years.


WHAT'S FALSE


Neither President Obama nor the State Department banned or stopped those applications entirely; the slowdown affected a single type of visa from a single country (and not all entry from several countries); the slowdown occurred in order to implement enhanced screening procedures, which remained in place in January 2017.


ORIGIN

On 28 January 2017, protests erupted at airports across the United States over President Donald Trump?s issuance of a executive order temporarily banning immigration from seven countries. In a 29 January 2017 statement, he said:


America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion ? this is about terror and keeping our country safe.

Supporters of the ban claimed that no such protests had occurred when President Obama purportedly banned visas for refugees in 2011:


Protests erupted at JFK?s terminal 4 on [28 January 2017] after incoming refugees were detained by customs and border patrol agents following Trump?s executive order temporarily banning refugees from 7 Muslim countries.

Of course, back in 2011 when Barack Obama banned Iraqi refugees for six months the far left said nothing!

However, on 24 July 2011 the New York Times reported a slowdown (but not a ban) on visas for Iraqis:


The Obama administration has required new background checks for visa applicants, reacting to a case in Kentucky in which two Iraqi immigrants were arrested on suspicion of ties to an insurgent group, according to American officials in Baghdad.

Advocates say that the administration is ignoring a directive from Congress to draft a contingency plan to expedite visas should those Iraqis who worked for the United States government, especially interpreters for the military, come under increased threat after American forces are drawn down at the end of the year.

A 20 November 2013 ABC News piece reported that as a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraqi refugees for six months. There was some pushback; according to reports, the Obama administration tweaked the special immigrant visa process as a result (but would not divulge what changes they had made).

By contrast, President Trump?s 27 January 2017 executive order called for a temporary ban on entry from seven nations that are purportedly detrimental to the interests of the United States, but with no supporting evidence cited:


To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

The 2011 State Department slowdown on processing asylum requests from Iraq was covered in great depth by news organizations, most frequently from a perspective critical of President Obama?s federal government leaving American assets in Iraq unprotected as nearly 60,000 applications were reviewed more extensively:


Several thousand Iraqis, including many who helped the United States during the Iraq war, are caught in a grim race between death threats in their own country and the cumbersome process of obtaining a visa ? Becca Heller, director of the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project, said 5,000 visas have been set aside each year since 2008 to expedite those Iraqis? entry into the United States. As of Sept. 30, the U.S. government should have given out 20,000 of these special visas, she said, but only 3,317 have been issued.

?What you have is a slowdown to a crawl for these visas,? said Trudy Rubin, columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer who has closely followed the Iraqi visa issue. ?People have been waiting for a year or more, and have not been given a timeframe for when they will be cleared.?

In 2015, the Wall Street Journal followed up with an article about a lawsuit filed on behalf of applicants who claimed their lives were put at risk during the 2011 delays. Following President Trump?s 29 January 2017 statement comparing his order to President Obama?s, Foreign Policy reported that the ban differed on five material points:


1. Much narrower focus: The [2011 Iraqi ?ban?] applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump?s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not ?ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.? For one thing, refugees don?t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration?s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time ? there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration?s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees ? the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration?s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies ? including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments ? and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli.

5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump?s call for ?extreme vetting? for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration?s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials.

Although it is true that the State Department?s enhanced review of applications from Iraq in 2011 slowed their processing time significantly, President Barack Obama did not ban or completely stop all entry from one (or seven) countries.

http://www.snopes.com/president-obama-ban-muslims-2011/

Now if you want to claim, like Kusa, that Snopes is lefty lib biased then you need to empirically repudiate the evidence cited.

[davdi]

Sure, all you will ever hear from the mainstream fake media is going to praise liberals and denigrate conservatives.   Why shouldn't they, they know which side of their toast has the butter and jam.  That you believe them is your privilege, you're welcome to it. 

[Inertialmass]

For myself it's never an issue of binary belief/no belief. 

There is evidence favoring a proposition, and evidence against the proposition.

And then there's mealy-mouthed metaphors of toast and butter and jam and blah blah blah.

Did you even bother to read the list of extreme differences between Obama's enhanced scrutiny given to Iraqi Special Immigrant Visas, versus the Trump travel ban targeting "seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers"?

[davdi]

What isn't cited is that Obama's decree was given time to work whereas Trump's decree was immediately labeled a Muslim ban by the left, and rather than by each individual case the screeners in New York took matters into their own hands and made a few mistakes.  This gave the left an opportunity to blame Trump for everything.   Nor did they pass it up. 

[Inertialmass]

What isn't cited is that Obama's decree was given time to work whereas Trump's decree...

Decree?  It's probably accurate to label Trump's attempted Executive Order an attempted and failed decree, but what Obama decree are you talking about? 

In the US, Congress makes law, the Executive executes the law, and the Judicial branch checks them both for Constitutionality.

H.R.158 - Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 was introduced to Congress by Rep. Candice Miller, MI, https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158 ,was then tucked inside the main government funding bill for 2016 at the last minute, and Obama signed the funding bill.  It was a Republican bill.

[Goombah]

  It looks to me like this whole issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.That being the case then time will ultimately tell this tale.

 

[Inertialmass]

I seriously wonder whether the erratic, spoiled rich kid might have a nervous breakdown or will be forced out before the Supreme Court sees this.  Even so, it's hard to picture five Supremes going along with a Trump edict so poorly based in empirical reasoning.  Like, where did the 9/11 guys come from?  Oh yeah, that place that just hung a gold medal around Trump's neck.  Who routinely exports the most in the way of violent, mass murdering State Terrorism?  Oh yeah, Israel and the US.

Fourth Circuit Upholds District Court Preliminary Injunction Against Trump Travel Ban 2.0

Gregory provided a summary of the Court?s reasoning in his opening paragraph.

?The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866), remains ?a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.? And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs? right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles?that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another. Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we affirm in substantial part the district court?s issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction as to Section 2(c) [Temporary Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern During Review Period] of the challenged Executive Order,? Gregory wrote.

http://www.alexandrianews.org/2017/05/fourth-circuit-upholds-district-court-preliminary-injunction-against-trump-travel-ban-2-0/

[Goombah]

I seriously wonder whether the erratic, spoiled rich kid might have a nervous breakdown or will be forced out before the Supreme Court sees this.  Even so, it's hard to picture five Supremes going along with a Trump edict so poorly based in empirical reasoning.  Like, where did the 9/11 guys come from?  Oh yeah, that place that just hung a gold medal around Trump's neck.  Who routinely exports the most in the way of violent, mass murdering State Terrorism?  Oh yeah, Israel and the US.

Fourth Circuit Upholds District Court Preliminary Injunction Against Trump Travel Ban 2.0

Gregory provided a summary of the Court?s reasoning in his opening paragraph.

?The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866), remains ?a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.? And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs? right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles?that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another. Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we affirm in substantial part the district court?s issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction as to Section 2(c) [Temporary Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern During Review Period] of the challenged Executive Order,? Gregory wrote.

http://www.alexandrianews.org/2017/05/fourth-circuit-upholds-district-court-preliminary-injunction-against-trump-travel-ban-2-0/

If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court rulings then so be it.Everyone then will have had their opportunity to present their arguments.
I'm cool with that.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Wasn't one of the reasons for imposing this "temporary" travel ban to give the new administration time to reevaluate the vetting process in order to identify and make changes if necessary? They have still had time to look at the process while this EO is in limbo. I wonder if they have made any progress in that endeavor or if this was all just bulls**t and they never intended to reevaluate anything to do with the vetting. 

[Steveox]

When a terrorist attack happens again in U.S we can blame the Judges right?

[Inertialmass]

When a terrorist attack happens again in U.S we can blame the Judges right?

Maybe?

Actually, no.

The next terrorist attack just happened.

Here's What We Know About The Suspect In The Portland Train Stabbing Attack

Jeremy Joseph Christian is a known white supremacist who attended a right wing "March for Free Speech" in April.

Two men were stabbed to death on a Portland, Oregon train Friday night, and another man injured, after they tried to intervene as a man shouted hate speech at two young women who appeared to be Muslim.

The police identified the suspect as Jeremy Joseph Christian, 35, of North Portland.

Christian was arrested on two counts of aggravated murder, two counts of second-degree intimidation, and being a felon in possession of a restricted weapon.

He will appear in court on Monday and may face further charges.

Christian is a known white supremacist who attended a right-wing "March for Free Speech" on April 29 in Portland, The Portland Mercury reported.

He brought a baseball bat to the march to assault left-wing protestors with, which was later confiscated by police.

Throughout the march, he reportedly shouted racial slurs and "Hail Vinland," gave the Nazi salute, and raved about being a nihilist.

Christian posted frequently on Facebook, often expressing violently Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, and white supremacist views.

According to his posts, he was a passionate Bernie Sanders supporter who later supported, but did not vote for, President Trump. He frequently posted violent threats against Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

He also posted about free speech, gun rights, conspiracy theories, marijuana and ? one of his most discussed topics ? opposing circumcision.

Christian has an extensive criminal record.

In 2002, he pleaded guilty and was sent to prison for robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a dangerous weapon, according to KOIN 6.

In 2010, he was accused of theft and being a felon in possession of a firearm. That case was later dismissed.

Christian posted one of his mugshots on Facebook in 2012, and wrote it "was a set up!!!!"

On Saturday, Christian's mother, Mary Christian, told HuffPost she did not know why her son would do attack the men.

?It?s scary,? she said. ?I can?t imagine he would do anything like this, unless he was on drugs or something. He?s been in prison, he?s always been spouting anti-establishment stuff but he?s a nice person I just can?t imagine.?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/portland-suspect?utm_term=.calolAQ21#.bvJJbePEy

[Mr. Blackwell]

When a terrorist attack happens again in U.S we can blame the Judges right?

Maybe?

Actually, no.

The next terrorist attack just happened...

I don't think that qualifies as a terrorist attack.

[Inertialmass]

ter?ror?ism

noun

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Nice quote.

Where did you get it from? Follow up question, is that definition universally accepted? Second followup question. Is that the only definition?

I ask only because the story you provided did not give a lot of details about the incident. 

[Inertialmass]

Nice quote.

Where did you get it from?

I custom created a skewed, special-purpose definition tailored specifically to reinforce my polemic in this thread.

Instead of typing "terrorism definition" into the search engine box and quoting verbatim the result, the way an honest person would do.

[davdi]

How much do you know about the Manchester attack?   I have followed it on Sky news. 

What we are ignoring is that here, in US, we have ten training grounds where Muslims is the wasabi branch are training people to go out and commit terrorist type attacks. 

Thanks to snow flakes and Democrats this is not common knowledge here. 

[Shnozzola]

Wait....what?

What we are ignoring is that here, in US, we have ten training grounds where Muslims is the wasabi branch are training people to go out and commit terrorist type attacks. 
Thanks to snow flakes and Democrats this is not common knowledge here.

We have a republican President, a republican House, and a republican Senate.  How are democrats stopping this from becoming common knowledge?  Could you give us the location of these 10 Muslim training grounds?

[kevin]

Could you give us the location of these 10 Muslim training grounds?

http://www.soaw.org/about-the-soawhinsec/what-is-the-soawhinsec

[Inertialmass]

give us the location of these 10 Muslim training grounds?

Seriously, it's 10, 15 or 37 terrorist camps, pending Davdi's mood.

Just like there's 1, 2 or 3 gods rolled into one pending the mood of Christianity.

Just like there's a religion, a race or a nationality called Judaism pending the expedient demand of the moment.

Just as Abu Bakr or Ali is the True Successor pending the expedient demand of the moment.

Invented stuff is great.  It can be anything ya want or need. 

[Mr. Blackwell]

Nice quote.

Where did you get it from?

I custom created a skewed, special-purpose definition tailored specifically to reinforce my polemic in this thread.

Instead of typing "terrorism definition" into the search engine box and quoting verbatim the result, the way an honest person would do.

If I type in "terrorism definition" into "a" search engine will I get the same result as you did? What if we don't use the same browser or search engine?

If you truly believe the story you provided is a valid example of a terrorist attack then defend your position with something a little more persuasive than a snarky reply.

[Bordeaux]

How much do you know about the Manchester attack?   I have followed it on Sky news. 

What we are ignoring is that here, in US, we have ten training grounds where Muslims is the wasabi branch are training people to go out and commit terrorist type attacks.

Thanks to snow flakes and Democrats this is not common knowledge here.

You are an absolute liar.  I do not care if I get reported for calling you a liar because it is fact that you are a liar.

[Inertialmass]

Nice quote.

Where did you get it from?

I custom created a skewed, special-purpose definition tailored specifically to reinforce my polemic in this thread.

Instead of typing "terrorism definition" into the search engine box and quoting verbatim the result, the way an honest person would do.

If I type in "terrorism definition" into "a" search engine will I get the same result as you did? What if we don't use the same browser or search engine?

And who might be in position to best answer your questions, Socrates?

[Mr. Blackwell]

Nice quote.

Where did you get it from?

I custom created a skewed, special-purpose definition tailored specifically to reinforce my polemic in this thread.

Instead of typing "terrorism definition" into the search engine box and quoting verbatim the result, the way an honest person would do.

If I type in "terrorism definition" into "a" search engine will I get the same result as you did? What if we don't use the same browser or search engine?

And who might be in position to best answer your questions, Socrates?

He's dead, how would I ask him? 

[eyeshaveit]

Like all good dead Athenian philosophers, Socrates if he could, would choose to speak through the OED:

"terrorism - definition of terrorism in English | Oxford Dictionaries
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism
The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." - Google.

[Dexter]

Wasn't one of the reasons for imposing this "temporary" travel ban to give the new administration time to reevaluate the vetting process in order to identify and make changes if necessary? They have still had time to look at the process while this EO is in limbo. I wonder if they have made any progress in that endeavor or if this was all just bulls**t and they never intended to reevaluate anything to do with the vetting. 

Love this post. Thanks Mr. Blackwell.

[Inertialmass]

If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court rulings then so be it.Everyone then will have had their opportunity to present their arguments.
I'm cool with that.

I was just reading a bit about where it goes from here.  There's actually several possible forks in the road still ahead.

1)  Supreme Court rejects taking the case (4 Justices must agree to take it), in which instance,
   
     a)  Lower court rulings may simply stand, thus all of the Executive Order is rejected,
     b)  Supremes request lower courts reconsider their earlier rulings, and the whole shebang starts over again,

2)  Supreme Court takes the case,

     a)  Some or all of the Executive Order is upheld,
     b)  Some or all of the Executive Order is rejected 

[davdi]

"It is confirmed that there are over 22 Jihadi Training Camps in the United States of America, but the FBI says there is nothing that can be done about them.

These training camps have been connected to Muslims of America (MOA) and belong to Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistan Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda-related branch. These camps are nothing new, as at least 19 of them were established as early as 2012.

FBI documents obtained by ?The Clarion Project? in 2007 detailed the Texas enclave."


This is oneside of it.      Here is another.

[davdi]

"The first question Donald Trump took at an event Thursday night in New Hampshire was a doozy.

"We have a problem in this country: It's called Muslims," the questioner began, going on to state that President Obama was himself Muslim. "We have training camps, growing, where they want to kill us. That's my question: When can we get rid of them?"

Trump's response met with immediate backlash. He didn't correct the questioner's incorrect assertion about Obama's religion and, further, suggested that his administration was "going to look at that." Trump's campaign insisted that the "that" they'd be looking at wasn't getting rid of Muslims -- but rather, those alleged training camps.

Which is itself a weird proposition.

The idea that there are 22 (or, in some iterations, 35) terrorist training camps in the United States appears to stem largely from a 2005 report from the National White Collar Crime Center, a nonprofit organization that receives federal funding. The report, "Identifying the Links between White-Collar Crime and Terrorism," focused on a group called Jamaat Ul Fuqra and the ways in which it used white-collar crime to fund its activities.

An appendix to the report indicates a number of places where Fuqra had conducted activities or had training compounds across the country. The training camp locations from that report are indicated on the map below."

But, here is another report:


"It is confirmed that there are over 22 Jihadi Training Camps in the United States of America, but the FBI says there is nothing that can be done about them.

These training camps have been connected to Muslims of America (MOA) and belong to Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistan Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda-related branch. These camps are nothing new, as at least 19 of them were established as early as 2012.

FBI documents obtained by ?The Clarion Project? in 2007 detailed the Texas enclave."


So, the guestion remains, whichreport do you believe?  I think the Washington Post report is a deliberate obfuscation.   The subject of terrorist camps become a diatribe on Trump for not challenging the guestioners assertion that Obama is a Muslim.  That's how the liberal press presents fake news.  Trump does not say Obama is a Muslim, although there are some circulated unsubstantiated reports to the positive, note that the second quote is from an FBI report on one of the camps.