RUSH: I have to talk about this judge, folks, and what’s happening here, because remember the piece that I shared with you from Daniel Greenfield, “The Civil War is Here” about the left simply respecting no authority other than its own, no authority in the Constitution, they do not respect the authority of election results. And this is now the third or fourth Trump executive order which has been stayed by Obama — well, one was a Bush 43 appointed judge. The others have been liberal Democrat judges mostly appointed by Obama.
And depending on where you go today and last night, you can find analysis of the judge’s decision, “You know, it’s a nothing burger, folks. I mean, the judge’s order is irrelevant because it doesn’t stop what the president wants to do, because what the president’s order is is not establishing any new law,” all of which is true. So from a legal standpoint, it may be a nothing burger, but it is far from a nothing burger politically. It is a huge deal politically, what these judges are doing.
It is beginning to look like there is a coordinated effort among some in the federal judiciary to simply, what’s the word, ignore President Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief under the belief that he is not fit for office, under the belief that he’s a maniac, under the belief that he’s insane because he had syphilis or whatever the hell fool notions these people believe. It appears now that there is a coordinated effort to thwart and oppose President Trump at every opportunity the judiciary has to do so.
We’ve obviously got judge shopping going on. I mean, these requests for stays and lawsuits happen in San Francisco or Seattle, where the appeal will go to the Ninth Circuit. This is not done haphazardly and randomly. And it is part and parcel of what we’ve been talking about, and that is the ongoing effort by the left to delegitimize the election, to simply say, “We don’t accept it. We refuse to accept the outcome of the election. Donald Trump is president, and we in the federal judiciary are gonna do everything we can when we have the chance to stop this president in his tracks from accomplishing anything he seeks to accomplish that we can stop.”
The actual ruling yesterday, which we’ll go through here in a second, may in fact be nothing legally, but politically I think this is huge, because that’s what this is. These judges are not ruling on the merits of the law. They are not ruling on anything judicial. They are ruling as pure political participants. And they are enforcing their own policy preferences in their efforts to use their power to thwart and stop the president of the United States.
By the way, greetings, and great to have you. Here’s the phone number if you want to be on the program: 800-282-2882. And the email address is ElRushbo@eibnet.us.
Okay. So what was this executive order? In the strict sense of the executive order, there was nothing new in it. There was no new appropriation of money. There was no new law. There was no new executive action. All this executive order was, essentially, was a statement that existing federal law regarding the funding of sanctuary cities would be enforced. That is all this executive order was. Some people might say, “Well, then it’s a bogus executive order. Trump’s just grandstanding.” Maybe.
You might be able to get away with saying that this was simply a climb to the mountaintop and a shout that says, “Listen to me, we’re gonna start enforcing the law,” which is all that Trump has been doing when it comes to immigration. There is no new immigration law in this country. All there is and what’s all of all of this controversy and all of this roiling everybody is the decision by the Trump administration to enforce existing law, be it regarding the border, be it illegal entry and deportation, be it what to do about criminal illegals, be it what to do about sanctuary cities.
All this is is the enforcement of existing law. The reason why it looks so extreme to some people or outrageous is that we haven’t been enforcing immigration law. We have been behaving under the Obama administration as though there isn’t any immigration law and that whatever Obama wants to do is fine. And you will note that whenever Obama did create executive orders that did create new law, there wasn’t a judiciary mobilized to stop him.
There was one judge in Texas by the name of Hannon who did, but in every other case of Obama executive orders, the judiciary just rolled right over. But here with Trump, they are — it’s hard to say that it’s conspiratorially unified. It is what it is. Liberals are liberals and they do not need memos back and forth to be told what to do. They do not need instructions.
They are liberals, and, as such, they know that they exist to stop Trump. They believe, nobody has to tell ’em, Trump is illegitimate. They believe, nobody has to tell ’em, that Trump’s election was illegitimate. These are the kind of people that believe the Russians really did impact the election and therefore Trump and everything he’s doing is illegitimate. Whenever they have a chance to stop it, they’re gonna do it.
RUSH: So we have, I think, a dire circumstance. I don’t think this is a nothing burger. I don’t think that this is nothing to get all excited about. In the legal sense the judge did not stop the enforcement of existing law. “Well, Rush, the media –” the media is not telling the truth about it because I don’t think the media understands what happened here. All that the media sees is that another judge told Trump to go to hell, and they love it and that’s all that matters. Now they can report another judge told Trump he can’t do what he wants to do because Trump’s irresponsible, Trump’s illegitimate, thank God for the judge, and that’s the narrative.
But that’s not what the judge did. That’s not what his executive order was. His executive order was a pure, 100 percent political statement, and it contained what every other judge that has stopped Trump to date has contained. “Well, you know, he said during the campaign he was gonna ban all Muslims. And he said during the campaign that he was gonna kick people out of sanctuary cities.” So the judge cites that stuff as evidence and justification for doing what he’s done here to theoretically stop Trump.
But even in this order the judge admits that there’s nothing new here. In this order the judge admits that he’s not stopping anything. If you read the whole thing — reading the whole thing is a slog, which is why the Drive-Bys are not going to do so. The judge’s name is Orrick. You might have heard the name because he’s the guy that found against the people that created the videos, the secret videos exposing Planned Parenthood for chopping up babies and selling body parts. He found against the people who conducted those secret video tapings. He’s an Obama fundraiser, he’s an Obama donor, he’s a bundler, 200 grand. He worked in the Justice Department.
So he’s a full-fledged down-the-line, perfectly flaked and formed modern-day leftist extremist. But if you spend the time on the exact order — for example, the judge acknowledges that the construction of the Trump executive order, the way it’s written and what it proposes, he acknowledges that. He agrees with it. The executive order that Trump is ballyhooing here is simply a reinforcement of existing law. There’s nothing new in this executive order. It’s just Trump announcing that we’re gonna be enforcing the law.
And some leftists are saying that Trump’s simply trying to score political points with this, and it may be. It could be that Trump wants everybody to know that he’s a new sheriff, there’s a new sheriff in town, and this law that’s been ignored, we are gonna enforce it. But the judge acknowledges that. The judge in his ruling acknowledges that the Trump executive order does nothing more than call for the enforcement of already existing law. The judge admits this! This judge is trying to embarrass Trump. Thing was rolled out, this executive order was rolled out with, you know, a lot of pomp, a lot of circumstance.
And this judge makes it clear in the ruling that he wants Trump brought back down to earth. He wants it known that Trump is pretending, that Trump is trying to do something here that he’s not doing. He’s not doing anything new, and the judge wants to expose Trump here as effectively writing an executive order that doesn’t do anything, other than proclaim we’re gonna follow the law.
And as I said, he spends a lot of time quoting stump speeches made by Trump and his campaign aides. You know, this is the way Trump, when he campaigns, the way he sells policy and the way he makes promises, those things are now being considered to have been legal utterances by a man who was not president. Trump is being held legally to concepts he only stated as a candidate. Like a Muslim ban, there hasn’t been a Muslim ban, but the judge here says, “He wants to. He wants to do that, and he wants to kick all these sanctuary citizens out and he wants to take their money away, and so I’m gonna make sure he can’t do it.”
In one of the — my buddy Andy McCarthy calls it one of the most disingenuous passages in the ruling — the judge asserts that the executive order directs the attorney general and the Homeland Security secretary to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are not eligible to receive federal grants. That is not true. In fact, that is an out-and-out lie. I don’t know purposefully or not, that’s a bit far, but it simply is not true. In quoting, the judge omitted the key passage in the executive order, which actually states the following: “The attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with the law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with the law are not eligible to receive federal grants.”
All that statement is is a statement of current law that is in the executive order, but what the judge left out in his ruling is the phrase “to the extent consistent with the law.” So in his ruling, the judge wants people at times to think Trump is trying a sneaky maneuver here and at other places in the order the judge is admitting that there’s nothing new here, no new ground being broken.
And even when this thing was being put together and argued, Justice Department lawyers emphasized that this executive order did nothing but reaffirm existing law. And it’s in the argument. But the judge refused to listen. He didn’t want that to be part of the evidence he would use for his ruling because what fun would be that be? What kind of excitement for a liberal judge could there be in stopping something that does nothing more than state we’re going to enforce federal law?
So the judge tries to make it look like that the Trump administration has much bigger plans that they’re not admitting to, and he goes back and cites campaign statements as evidence for what might really be going on here. This is so bogus. And it’s getting so tiresome. It has nothing to do with the law. This ruling was totally unnecessary. The executive order wasn’t really necessary, other than for Trump to make a statement about what their policy’s gonna be, because it differs from the previous administration, which was not enforcing immigration law. Trump wants everybody to know as often as he can say it that he is going to.
RUSH: To make this ruling suitable for the Drive-Bys to report it as a snub of Trump and an arrest, if you will, of Trump’s policy, the judge literally had to invent a violation. They had to invent, the judge had to invent a violation. In other words, the judge had to claim that the Trump administration was already in violation of law regarding sanctuary cities, which gave him the justification for shutting them down. If Trump is violating the law, then the judge is thoroughly entitled to stop Trump.
And I just happened to see in a panel discussion on CNN some completely uninformed woman talking about this, and she was referring to the part that I just shared with you, the judge’s opinion where he purposely leaves out the most important part of a paragraph in the executive order.
RUSH: Here, ladies and gentlemen, is what the media want you to believe about Trump’s executive order. They want you to believe that Trump decided on his own to take money away from cities that are sanctuary cities. They want you to think that Trump issued an executive order that will allow him and his emissaries to simply stop sending federal money to San Francisco, to New York, to Santa Clara. The media wants you to think that this is something brand-new.
They want you to think that Trump is behaving like a tyrannical dictator because he hates Mexicans and he hates immigrants and this is the way he’s gonna punish people who are only behaving in compassionate way and trying to help the downtrodden. And this mean-spirited SOB Trump, he’s just gonna go in there and he’s gonna take money away from these cities and everybody’s gonna starve and it’s gonna be horrible! And then they want you to believe that a brilliant federal judge spotted this and laid down the law and told this tyrant Trump, “You can’t do that!
“I, Judge William Orrick, am not gonna let you be a dictator. I’m not gonna let you be a tyrant. I’m not gonna let you take money from San Francisco. You can’t do it because I said so.” And they want to give the judge an award. None of that has happened. Not a shred of what that narrative is has happened. Trump created an executive order which explicitly says they are going to start enforcing existing law. There is already, ladies and gentlemen, existing law saying that under certain circumstances the federal government may withhold funds.
Under U.S. Code Title VIII, I think. It doesn’t matter what it is. But they can withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities if this cities violate certain aspects of federal law. And all the executive order did is just say (paraphrased), “Hey! We’re gonna start enforcing this.” That’s all that’s happened here. There has been no violation. The Trump administration has not written new law. The Trump administration has not taken a dime away from any sanctuary city. The Trump administration has not yet mobilized to do so. But the judge… Because the objective here is the resistance to Trump, the treatment of Trump as illegitimate and inauthentic.
“He has no authority. He’s an illegitimate president because we don’t like the election outcome. We don’t think it was legitimate, and Trump may be insane!” All of these are factors in these judges essentially saying that Trump cannot take the oath was office. “We can’t believe that he meant it because he lies so much, because he’s so extreme, because he’s so ridiculous. So, yeah, Trump took the oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution. But we Obama-appointed judges, simply don’t accept that.
“Because we think Trump’s a lunatic and doesn’t know what he’s swearing to.” This is, to a degree, what’s really happening here. So in order for the judge to be able to grandstand and make himself a great big hero to the left, he had to create a violation. I am not exaggerating. I am not playing with words. The judge had to invent a violation of the law in order to issue this executive order in such a way that docile, servitude media people could report that the tyrant has once again been stood up to and stopped.
And what is the violation? Well, it’s very simple. The judge theorizes, the judge imagines in his opinion in his ruling, that because San Francisco and Santa Clara — these are two cities mentioned in the suit. They’re in the jurisdiction. And Judge Orrick lives in San Francisco. So he theorizes that because San Francisco and Santa Clara get a lot of federal money, that Trump’s executive order is causing them “preenforcement anxiety.”
In other words, the violation that has occurred here is that Trump’s threat to walk into town and take money away from these cities is making them nervous, and it’s creating something called preenforcement anxiety. And by virtue of calling it preenforcement, the judge is admitting that nothing has happened! So now we’ve got a new disease. We have a new mental disorder: Preenforcement anxiety. Preenforcement anxiety is the nervousness and the fear that cities feel when they think that the federal government might deny them federal money.
And it makes anything they do to make themselves not feel fear and anxiety entirely justified. Trump is not allowed to make them feel feared and anxious. Trump is not permitted to do or say anything that might make them feel uncomfortable. That’s the violation. There isn’t a violation. The judge says — because Trump is proposing such Draconian measures in this executive order — that the people in these communities are feeling unnecessary anxiety and fear, preenforcement, and therefore Trump should be shut down.
The president doesn’t have the authority to make people in San Francisco and Santa Clara feel fearful, nor anxious, nor nervous. And I’m not inventing a single thing here. That is the violation. The violation is root in Trump’s comments on the campaign trail. He scared a lot of people, don’t you know! He scares the Muslims. He told everybody he wanted a nationwide Muslim ban. You didn’t want any refugees from any Muslim countries. And he doesn’t like Mexicans, and he’s gonna send them all home, and he doesn’t think they should be here.
All of these things constitute what’s really in the mind of the tyrant, and the tyrant must be stopped! So Judge William Orrick is the latest hero of the left. At the end of all of this — and here is another bit of gospel for you — the judge didn’t stop anything because nothing has happened. The judge can’t stop anything that Trump, in the executive order, says he’s going to do, because Trump and Sessions and the DOJ acknowledge in the executive order, that the steps they take will be consistent with the law.
It’s Title VIII U.S. Code 1373: Sanctuary Jurisdictions. They acknowledge and they reference that law, the administration does. Now, here is what, again, the judge did, in feeding a narrative to media that allowed them to report that Trump was behaving in a dictatorial, tyrannical fashion and that the heroic judge stopped him. Here’s what it says in the executive order. Quote, “The attorney general and the Secretary of Homeland Security in their discretion — and to the extent consistent with the law — shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with Title VIII U.S. Code 1373 are not eligible to receive federal grants.”
All it did was recite the law!
In the judge’s opinion, he asserts that the executive order directs the attorney general and the Homeland Security secretary to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are not eligible to receive federal grants. That is not stated in the executive order. The judge is who is disingenuous here, not Trump. The judge is who is taking matters outside the law, not Trump. The judge is who is politicizing this, not Trump and not Sessions. When the judge writes that Trump’s executive order tells the attorney general to make sure that sanctuary cities are not eligible to receive federal money, he is lying.
Because that is not what the executive order says.
The executive order makes plain that the only way funds can be denied is to the extent consistent with the law, which is cited. That’s what’s happened here. At the end of the day, Trump can still enforce the law if he wants. He can still deny money to sanctuary cities consistent with the law, and the judge says so in the executive order, in his ruling. So nothing’s changed, other than the perception of what happened. And the perception of what happened is Trump’s a dictator, a tyrant. He’s illegitimate, he’s a fraud, and he just tried to steal all these sanctuary cities’ money.
And a heroic judge has stood up and said, “No, you can’t! Not on my watch.” And the judge is a hero, and Trump is being portrayed as what I just said.
That’s the politics of it.
RUSH: Mr. Snerdley, the Official Program Observer, just said, “You know, what you just said is totally opposite what I heard and saw last night.” I said, “That’s exactly right. Exactly right.” How many of you believed, starting last night when you first heard about this, all during the night, during the day today, how many of you believed that another heroic federal the judge stepped in to stop the tyrant and an executive order that is unconstitutional? (interruption) Oh, they didn’t convey to you that Trump was behaving unconstitutionally, that was not there?
Then what did they convey Trump was doing? What did you think, based on what you saw last night, what did you think Trump was doing? What illegal was Trump doing? They tried to say that Trump was unfairly focusing on sanctuary cities and taking money? They never said it was unconstitutional? I’m glad to hear it ’cause it’s not unconstitutional ’cause there’s nothing new here!
In fact, the bad actor in this whole scenario is the judge. The judge is the guy who makes things up and changes things in order to find a violation that has not occurred. (interruption) Well, okay, the judge killed Trump’s executive order. That’s a good example. That’s what they report. They didn’t kill executive order. The executive order is not necessary. The law was not changed. The executive order was not necessary. Trump didn’t need to do it in order to enable to him to do what he wants to do. The executive order — the judge referenced this — the executive order was, you know, a bunch of chest thumping, “Look at me, I’m Donald Trump, here’s what I’m gonna do,” but it wasn’t anything new. They just said they were gonna enforce existing law.
There’s no way to slap that down. If you’ve got an executive order that just says that the administration’s gonna enforce the law and you’ve got an Obamaite or liberal judge pledge to stop Trump, on what basis do you stop that? So you have to find a violation. The judge has to find, in all of this, a violation. And the judge did. The violation is preenactment anxiety. Because Trump might enforce the law, people in San Francisco and Santa Clara are anxious and nervous that they might lose money. So Trump has to be stopped.
Preenactment anxiety is what the judge cited as the violation. And, of course, leaving out in his review that all the administration is doing here is following existing law.
Here’s Jeff in Summit, New Jersey, as we head to the phones on this. Great to have you, sir. Glad you called. What’s happening?
CALLER: Great job, Rush, as always. Always enjoy listening to you. And I have to agree with Mr. Snerdley. You’re the first one to actually frame it this way. It was reported completely differently yesterday and last night, and thank you for clearing it up.
RUSH: Well, I had a lot of help from Andy McCarthy. I rely on him — and a couple of other people when it comes to matters of constitutional law and so forth. I’m lucky to have good friends who resource things for me. But it’s stunning to me how unique the truth is here and how out of bounds and how outrageous the narrative on this is.
CALLER: Well, you know what else is glaringly absent from all of the reporting, it wasn’t all that long ago, I think it was May or so of 2016, when Obama’s Justice Department, clearly guided by Obama, threatened to pull federal funding from school districts that didn’t comply with his idea of providing transgender bathrooms or allowing students who identified as an opposite gender from using the bedroom of their choice.
RUSH: Great example.
CALLER: In fact, I think when they issued that order or that letter or that directive to school districts, they gave them five or six days to comply, under the direct threat that they would cut hundreds of millions of dollars of federal education funds. And I don’t remember anybody back then claiming preenforcement or preenactment anxiety disorder. They just moved to try to comply with the law.
RUSH: Not only that, there wasn’t a single federal judge, there wasn’t a conservative Republican that sued Obama or tried to stop him in court. We just don’t do that. We just don’t behave that way. We leave it up to the American people to render judgments on these things at election time.
CALLER: Well, I think we also rely on the fact that when we see something that appears to be lawful on its face we assume that it’s going to stand and the person who has the apparent authority to engage in that activity is gonna be allowed to engage in that particular activity, such as the president’s authority here.
RUSH: Right. Well, but what authority did Obama have to threaten school funding if people didn’t recognize what bathroom some people wanted to use on Thursday at 5 p.m.?
CALLER: From my perspective, I’m not sure he had any authority to do that, but as you very correctly pointed out —
RUSH: Yes, he did. You know what grants him the authority? If nobody’s willing to stop him, he’s got the authority.
CALLER: You know, that’s a very interesting point. I remember when I first started working for a living I had a boss who one day came up to me and he said, “I just want you to know something. Authority is never given. It’s taken.”
RUSH: That’s mostly I think true.
CALLER: It is mostly true. You know, I tell you, I have to like this new defense that this judge came up with. Do you think it would be possible, for example, for American citizens when they get a letter from the IRS to invoke this preenactment or preenforcement anxiety disorder and rush to a judge and stop the IRS from any further action?
RUSH: Yeah, I don’t, see — (laughing) — try it! See what happens. Give me a call, let me know what happens. You can be the test case. “I’m sorry, I can’t file my taxes this year. I have preenactment anxiety waiting for the deadline, I can’t function, I can’t function. You’ve gotta stop pressuring me this way. The fact that I might lose my money to you, you can’t do it.” See how far you get with that.
Look, folks, this is a serious thing. It’s a serious thing in terms of what we have been discussing the last couple of weeks about what’s really happening in this country. This is not a political disagreement. This is not a political debate taking place within the confines of our arena of ideas where both sides respect an ultimate authority. We don’t have that. We have one side rejecting all authority except theirs, except themselves, and they are usurping and ignoring when necessary the Constitution in order to do so, the separation of powers, and nobody’s calling ’em on it. I mean, to go to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court on this is to guarantee that they will prevail.
RUSH: By the way, folks, the law that allows defunding of sanctuary cities, Title 8 U.S. Code 1373 passed in 1996 under Bill Clinton. That’s how old the law is.
RUSH: See? You see? You see right there on CNN, there’s a banner: “Trump lashes out at another federal judge.” That’s how this works. It’s entirely bogus. Trump should be lashing out at the federal judge. Everybody should be lashing out at the federal judge. Everybody ought to be angry at what this federal judge has done.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome. It’s great to have you. Rush Limbaugh, executing assigned duties flawlessly, while serving humanity. The telephone number here if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882.
I just want to remind you, I had to say this lickety-split in a brief amount of seconds as the previous hour closed. Title 8, United States code section 1373, which is the sanctuary city defunding provision, was signed into law on September 30th, 1996. Who was president then? That’s right. William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was president then. That’s how old the law is.
And look, just very briefly to rehash, Trump issued an executive order which did nothing but say that they were going to enforce Title 8 U.S. Code 1373. That’s all the executive order was. The judge had to invent a violation in order to issue a so-called stay. What the judge has done here is tried to get away with stopping a president from implementing existing federal law. And the judge, in his order, just conveniently happened to omit that the executive order mentions that they will only remove funding consistent to the extent of existing federal law.
The judge did not include that in his order of a stay, creating the illusion that Trump was behaving outside the Constitution, doing something nefarious, taking money away from cities that do wonderful things in social services for illegal immigrants and yada yada yada. It is truly outrageous what has happened here and what continues to happen with these liberal judges who are behaving purely and simply as though Trump is not legitimate, Trump has no authority, he in effect is not the president because of whatever. He’s insane, he’s crazy, he’s a maniac, he’s a bigot, the Russians stole the election, whatever.
And again, the judge had to invent a violation, and the violation the judge cites that the Trump executive order is guilty of is preenactment anxiety. San Francisco and Santa Clara are caused unnecessary and undue fear and anxiety simply based on the possibility that Trump might defund them under existing law. No money’s been taken away, no sanctuary city has been defunded, no move to defund has ever happened yet. All the executive order said was that we’re gonna start enforcing the law.
By the way, there has been a salutary effect here, and that is just the threat to enforce the law and the beginning of enforcing the law by ICE and the Border Patrol, there’s a rancher in Texas saying that border crossings — and he watches, he studies — they’re down 90% since Trump became president. Illegal immigration is down simply because Donald Trump has claimed, “If you violate the law and come here illegally, you’re going to be sent back.”
One more thing on this and I’m gonna move on. I just want to remind everybody again that the actions taken by the Trump administration on border enforcement, they do look, by comparison, really harsh. “Wow, ICE rounding up all these guys, sending ’em home. Holy smokes, the Border Patrol and ICE are really moving into gear.” The only thing that has changed in the last eight years is that existing law is being enforced.
The take-away here, my friends, is the reason all of this looks like it’s really over the top is because of how lax our enforcement of the law has been for eight years. There hasn’t been any, or very little. Obama has occasionally deported people and thumped his chest, “Look at me, I’m the deporter-in-chief, look at me, I’m enforcing,” but he hasn’t. He wasn’t doing a thing to stop illegal border crossings. The country was doing diddly-squat. Now that we are, it looks like, “Wow, massive new changes, and I know there hasn’t been a new law. What’s Trump doing?” They want you to think that Trump is a renegade behaving on his own without concern for the law.
Let me clarify one thing. When I said that the procedure here going to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court is to guarantee that this judge wins, all I meant by that was that the Ninth Circuit is not gonna overturn the judge. If you pursue this legally, then you acknowledge the judge is legit. The judge is who is illegitimate here. The judge is the one playing the games with the law. The judge is one engaging in politics here, not Trump, not Jeff Sessions. The judge is.
And, by the way, this cockamamie stuff of trying to take statements made during a campaign by a candidate and then saying that those represent statements that can be legally considered and enforced before the guy was even president? Every one of these judges that stopped a Trump executive order has relied on that. For example, the first travel ban, there was no blanket ban of Muslims. But the judge in Seattle (imitating judge), “Well, Trump said, Trump said that he wanted to ban all Muslims, and I think as the judge that this is just the first step, so I’m shutting it down.”
But there is has never been presented an executive order or piece of legislation banning Muslims from the United States. Yet the judge, “Well, Trump wants to, he wants to.” And we’re making law out of this? We’re having legal decisions rendered based on these kinds of things?
They’re the ones, folks, that are way over the top here and way out of bounds. They are the ones who are behaving dictatorially and tyrannically, and they are the ones who are threatening the Constitution, not Donald Trump. It was Donald Trump portrayed as a tyrant, as a dictator, Trump was gonna do this or that. So far, it’s the people trying to stop Trump who are exhibiting that kind of extreme behavior.