All errors should be reported to

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Will Trump's plan work?

Leftists and their sycophants in the conservative movement -- Jennifer Rubin dismisses Trump supporters as "low IQ" -- have responded to Trump's Statement on Preventing Muslim Terrorism with an anger and a hysteria that is self-parody. They lie. They cry. They call names. Bigot. Racist. Unconstitutional. Xenophobic. Islamophobic.

They have yet to make one argument about whether his plan will work. We just had 14 people die and a score or more others get shot under the current plan. Only a fool casts aside unread a plan by a successful individual.
I think so.

First, it is constitutional. President Carter banned Iranian immigrants and deported thousands. The federal government can do that.

What is unconstitutional is the Democratic Party's proposal to ban guns from people on the No Fly list. Being placed on the list is arbitrary, secretive and it cannot be reviewed.

Second, Trump's plan is effective. Foreign Muslim jihadists have entered the nation legally to kill people -- including 19 on September 11, 2001. While there is no guarantee that homegrown Muslim terrorists will kill, this would reduce the influx of more evil.

The Democratic Party's plan to ban gun sales to the No Fly list is ineffective. No jihadist on the No Fly list purchased a gun to kill anyone. The San Bernardino jihadists flew without anyone batting an eye.

Third, if it is constitutional and effective, why do people hate the plan so much?

Because it is constitutional and effective. Liberals see terrorism as an opportunity to expand government (Homeland Security).

Republicans are too afraid of being called racist or xenophobic or some other name to take on the enemy.

Between the two parties there are 18 people running for president.

Trump is running for commander in chief.


  1. Trump does not have a "plan." He has made an absurd proposal. What is the plan? How would he institute the ban? If he were president, would it be through legislation? Through a declaration? Trump thinking he could just call for a ban as president and then think it would magically happen is delusional at best. Another "read my lips, no new taxes" moment, times ten.
    If Trump really wants this ban. Fine. But he has yet to explain how. And yet, you blind worshippers are falling for it hook, line and sinker.
    I hope the Rs continue to rail against this proposal. Trump is threatening to go the independent route if they don't stop. What a baby.

    1. Actually a call to halt immigration from Muslim countries is a plan. You deny them visas. You are ridiculously vapid.

  2. Surber - please post Trump's plan. Not his press release. How do you know it is constitutional / legal? Who is the bigger fool here: Trump for making absurd statements with no details or you, for thinking such an absurd statement with zero details would magically take hold?
    BTW, can you also post Trump's plan (not rehash his sound bite tweet) on how he will build a wall along Mexico border and make the Mexican government pay for it?

    1. Carter did it when the crazies took our Embassy in Teheran.

      Nobody said anything then.

      and they had about a year to do so.

    2. I already did. Details are simple: Deny them their visas. Stay anonymous, because if you identified yourself you would embarrass your family.

    3. Your entitled to your interpretation of Trump's proposal. I'd still like to hear his.
      As for identifying oneself, you have already embarrassed your family many times over. When you going to post more photos of Trump's 22-year old in a bikini with a frothing post accompanying it? No doubt your preferred candidate Carly Fiorina would be proud of it.

    4. If you want it from the horses mouth why are you bothering Don for it? Why don't you just go suck your thumb?

    5. Public law 414- page 188
      Susp ens ion of (e) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of
      entry by President. any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the
      interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such
      period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or
      any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the
      entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

    6. From Wisconsin law Prof. Ann Althouse's blog:

      "Professor Spiro [a professor of immigration law at Temple University] does a fine job of explaining the Supreme Court's "extreme deference" to Congress and the President under what's known as the "plenary power" doctrine:

      It dates back to the 1889 decision in the Chinese Exclusion case, in which the court upheld the exclusion of Chinese laborers based on their nationality... More recent decisions have upheld discrimination against immigrants based on gender and illegitimacy that would never have survived equal protection scrutiny in the domestic context. Likewise, courts have rejected the assertion of First Amendment free speech protections by noncitizens. Nor has the Supreme Court ever struck down an immigration classification, even ones based on race. As late as 1965, a federal appeals court upheld a measure that counted a Brazilian citizen of Japanese descent as Asian for the purposes of immigration quotas. In the context of noncitizens seeking initial entry into the United States, due process protections don’t apply, either...."

      So, as the Left like to say, The Law is Settled. On the matter of Trump's immigration "plan", it is blackletter law, i.e., beyond dispute. Case closed.

  3. First, it's temporary.

    Second, there's next to nothing about immigration in the Constitution.

    Then, throwing anybody out of the country would only require a hearing to show cause why they should not be stripped of the citizenship and deported for, among other things, treason (as defined in the Constitution).

    1. So is this Donald Trump's plan? Why compare Carter and the Iran hostage crisis to Trump's proposal. So there may be a precedent. Won't know until Trump gives us details though. Until then, everything else is irrelevant.

    2. Yes, that is his plan. And you are right. This is a more serious stuation. No hostages were killed in Iran. Muslims on visas have killed more than 3,000.

    3. Great. You are Donald Trump's spokesperson now? You confirm that your overly simplistic post speaks for Trump as Trump does not elaborate on his proposal. Amazing. Comparing Iran hostage with 9-11. Keep those straw man arguments coming. Such a fool you are.

    4. Jeb! Jeb Bush, is that you? I believe it is: Jeb Bush follows Don Surber. Who'da thunk it?

  4. Why are people asking Trump the "details" of his plan to deal with terrorists? He's not the president. Obama is. Why aren't people pressing Obama for the details of HIS plan to deal with terrorists coming into this country? And what are the "details" of his plan to deal with the on-going war in Syria he got us into?

    When Obama ran for office in 2008, his entire "plan" was Hope and Change. None of the Libs bothered to ask him then to explain the "details" of his "plan" for America. What we know now is that his plan was to ruin America and ignore the Constitution. The people who failed to ask Obama the details of his "plan" in 2008 have no right to question Trump's plan to keep terrorists out of the US. What he said was clear enough, and legal enough, and within both the president's authority and Congress' authority according to past SCOTUS decisions: entry into the US is not a right, it is a privilege that can be regulated through laws that are already on the books and through tight restrictions placed on visa applications. That's the plan: enforce existing law, close the Southern border, don't issue visas until we can get a handle on how to vet immigrants and tourists.

  5. Wow Don! Anonymous Really has a bad case of SDS (Surber Derangement Syndrone). Some trolls really are entertaining aren't they? I've noticed Anonymous also has a bad case of reading comprehension as I've pointed out to him in previous comment threads.