-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
LOL. Thanks for admitting the truth hurts and that I am not on your "ignore" {sic} list.
-------------
Back on topic:
Seattle judge blocks Trump's travel ban; White House to appeal | Reuters
A Seattle federal judge on Friday put a nationwide block on U.S. President Donald Trump's week-old executive order that had temporarily barred refugees and nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.
The judge's temporary restraining order represents a major setback for Trump's action, though the White House said late Friday that it believed the ban to be "lawful and appropriate" and that the U.S. Department of Justice would file an emergency appeal.
Still, just hours after the ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection told airlines they could board travelers who had been affected by the ban.
Trump's Jan. 27 order caused chaos at airports across the United States last week as some citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were denied entry. Virtually all refugees were also barred, upending the lives of thousands of people who had spent years seeking asylum in the U.S.
The State Department said Friday that almost 60,000 visas were suspended in the wake of Trump's order; it was not clear Friday night whether that suspension was automatically revoked or what travelers with such visas might confront at U.S. airports.
While a number of lawsuits have been filed over Trump's action, the Washington state lawsuit was the first to test the broad constitutionality of the executive order. Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, explicitly made his ruling apply across the country, while other judges facing similar cases have so far issued orders concerning only specific individuals.
The challenge in Seattle was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.
Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas. Amazon.com and Expedia, both based in Washington state, had supported the lawsuit, asserting that the travel restrictions harmed their businesses.
Tech companies, which rely on talent from around the world, have been increasingly outspoken in their opposition to the Trump administration's anti-immigrant policies.
Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he called the "litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.
Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”
while some believe that the Flame of Freedom has been wiped out by Trump such as this toon suggests below,
...others use the courts and the Constitution to insure that the Torch remains lit with the symbolic Fires of Freedom.
LOL. Thanks for admitting the truth hurts and that I am not on your "ignore" {sic} list.
-------------
Back on topic:
Seattle judge blocks Trump's travel ban; White House to appeal | Reuters
A Seattle federal judge on Friday put a nationwide block on U.S. President Donald Trump's week-old executive order that had temporarily barred refugees and nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.
The judge's temporary restraining order represents a major setback for Trump's action, though the White House said late Friday that it believed the ban to be "lawful and appropriate" and that the U.S. Department of Justice would file an emergency appeal.
Still, just hours after the ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection told airlines they could board travelers who had been affected by the ban.
Trump's Jan. 27 order caused chaos at airports across the United States last week as some citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were denied entry. Virtually all refugees were also barred, upending the lives of thousands of people who had spent years seeking asylum in the U.S.
The State Department said Friday that almost 60,000 visas were suspended in the wake of Trump's order; it was not clear Friday night whether that suspension was automatically revoked or what travelers with such visas might confront at U.S. airports.
While a number of lawsuits have been filed over Trump's action, the Washington state lawsuit was the first to test the broad constitutionality of the executive order. Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, explicitly made his ruling apply across the country, while other judges facing similar cases have so far issued orders concerning only specific individuals.
The challenge in Seattle was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.
Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas. Amazon.com and Expedia, both based in Washington state, had supported the lawsuit, asserting that the travel restrictions harmed their businesses.
Tech companies, which rely on talent from around the world, have been increasingly outspoken in their opposition to the Trump administration's anti-immigrant policies.
Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he called the "litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.
Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”
while some believe that the Flame of Freedom has been wiped out by Trump such as this toon suggests below,
...others use the courts and the Constitution to insure that the Torch remains lit with the symbolic Fires of Freedom.
-------------
Back on topic:
Seattle judge blocks Trump's travel ban; White House to appeal | Reuters
A Seattle federal judge on Friday put a nationwide block on U.S. President Donald Trump's week-old executive order that had temporarily barred refugees and nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.
The judge's temporary restraining order represents a major setback for Trump's action, though the White House said late Friday that it believed the ban to be "lawful and appropriate" and that the U.S. Department of Justice would file an emergency appeal.
Still, just hours after the ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection told airlines they could board travelers who had been affected by the ban.
Trump's Jan. 27 order caused chaos at airports across the United States last week as some citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were denied entry. Virtually all refugees were also barred, upending the lives of thousands of people who had spent years seeking asylum in the U.S.
The State Department said Friday that almost 60,000 visas were suspended in the wake of Trump's order; it was not clear Friday night whether that suspension was automatically revoked or what travelers with such visas might confront at U.S. airports.
While a number of lawsuits have been filed over Trump's action, the Washington state lawsuit was the first to test the broad constitutionality of the executive order. Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, explicitly made his ruling apply across the country, while other judges facing similar cases have so far issued orders concerning only specific individuals.
The challenge in Seattle was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.
Washington's case was based on claims that the state had suffered harm from the travel ban, for example students and faculty at state-funded universities being stranded overseas. Amazon.com and Expedia, both based in Washington state, had supported the lawsuit, asserting that the travel restrictions harmed their businesses.
Tech companies, which rely on talent from around the world, have been increasingly outspoken in their opposition to the Trump administration's anti-immigrant policies.
Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on what he called the "litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.
Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”
while some believe that the Flame of Freedom has been wiped out by Trump such as this toon suggests below,
...others use the courts and the Constitution to insure that the Torch remains lit with the symbolic Fires of Freedom.
Like I mentioned, there were many things wrong with that post, not just racism. Let's start with some universal things - or at least I shall say it is universal, being that I am Indian and not even American, and I am aware of these things.
The term "negro" to refer to a group of people has been associated with slavery, discrimination and is considered offensive.
If you don't think this is hatred - I suggest you go and read this person's post to a group of Americans who identify with that race and see their reactions to it. Try doing it in public.
If you can do that, without an ounce of shame, then there's no point in me having to explain anything further.
"He was half white genetically, and had much whiter features than black. In fact, if he had had the flat nose and large lips more typical of certain Negros, I am positive he never would have been voted into office. "
The term "negro" to refer to a group of people has been associated with slavery, discrimination and is considered offensive.
If you don't think this is hatred - I suggest you go and read this person's post to a group of Americans who identify with that race and see their reactions to it. Try doing it in public.
If you can do that, without an ounce of shame, then there's no point in me having to explain anything further.
"He was half white genetically, and had much whiter features than black. In fact, if he had had the flat nose and large lips more typical of certain Negros, I am positive he never would have been voted into office. "
What utter nonsense. She was describing one of the obvious differences between the Caucasian and Negroid races. How do you think doctors can glance at an X-ray or a skeleton and tell you, instantly, whether it is a Negro, an Asian, or a Caucasian? We are different in our bone structure, as well as our fleshly parts.
Last edited:
Yeah please go read her post to a group of Americans in public.
Also save your medical factoids - this has nothing to do with doctors. This has all to do with the fact that she was diminishing someone's rise to a public office by using derogative terms of their race.
To imply that people of a certain color or a certain race cannot aspire to a political office unless they were half-white or otherwise is disgusting.
Whoever you are, seeing your age posted - times have changed. Hopefully you can get over your racism and move on with it.
Also save your medical factoids - this has nothing to do with doctors. This has all to do with the fact that she was diminishing someone's rise to a public office by using derogative terms of their race.
To imply that people of a certain color or a certain race cannot aspire to a political office unless they were half-white or otherwise is disgusting.
Whoever you are, seeing your age posted - times have changed. Hopefully you can get over your racism and move on with it.
She was saying Blacks mainly voted for him because of his race. As for looks, Obama, himself, in one of his attempts at continuing the racial divide in America, publicly announced that if he had a son, he would look just like a Black kid who got himself killed for attacking an Hispanic night guard in an apartment complex.