They say a wounded animal is the most dangerous and leaders and members of the so-called "resistance," those determined to resist anything President Trump does for the country, have seen their "movement" wounded time and time again, but they will not lay down without a fight.
The examples include but are not limited to: Hillary Clinton's new political group aiming to "Resist, insist, persist, enlist," failing miserably, to Antifa fanatical members of the "resistance" learning the hard way what it feels like to have walls of meat aka patriots start punching back, to celebrities like Kathy Griffin finding out what happens to a career when you hold up a bloody mock head of the president in an ISIS-style short video, to the leaders of this "resistance" movement, the mainstream media, being publicly humiliated with proof they are pumping out "fake news" as propaganda.
WINNING VERSUS THE RESISTANCE
Political resistance members: Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, along with every other Democrat politician that publicly lied about President Trump being "under investigation" by the FBI for five months, were recently exposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, when he delivered a statement on the Senate floor which explained that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and the group of Senate and House members known as the "Gang of Eight" were told in March, by former FBI director James Comey, that President Trump was not under investigation.
But Schumer, who is part of the Gang of Eight, continued to tell the media Trump was under investigation, Grassley said.
"That helped feed the media hysteria," he said. "The Minority Leader even tried to say that the Senate shouldn’t vote on the Supreme Court nomination because the president was under investigation. And the whole time, he knew it wasn’t true."
"Resistance" House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is also facing her own crisis and members of her own Democratic party are trying to oust her after the last eight years under Obama with Pelosi as the "leader" of her party, resulted in Democrats losing the majority in the House, the Senate and lost over 1,000 legislative seats across the nation.
One of the political leaders of the "resistance", Maxine Waters, the woman that has called for impeaching President Trump since before he was even inaugurated, has seen her own townhalls turned into chaos when Trump supporters decided maybe it was time to start protesting a little themselves, resulting in quite a bit of "impeach Maxine Waters" activism.
Interestingly, one of the most vocal members of that protest group was an African American woman, Chanell Temple, screaming into a megaphone "you have destroyed the black community! You are a black racist, you hate blacks! All the jobs went to illegals! You gave our jobs to illegals!" She continued on to say "We want you out. You’re paying with taxpayer’s money and you’re giving jobs to illegals!'
"She has destroyed the black community with illegal immigration!" Temple said into a microphone later, "I lost my job because I did not speak Spanish in my country because of people like Maxine Waters! Nobody is representing blacks! We are American citizens, we have a right to work in our own country! You know that they have destroyed the black community, and you do nothing!" (See video at The Blaze) MSM - Leaders of the resistance movement: Every false Russia/Trump collusion news story was hailed as reasons to "impeach Trump" only for the truth to be revealed which collapsed the entire narrative, and where the mainstream media was publicly embarrassed by multiple former and current intelligence agency members telling congress many of their anonymously sourced stories were "dead wrong."
The MSM's utter humiliation from the latest scandal to engulf CNN, which we reported at ANP on June 25, is still hitting the network President Trump has dubbed "very fake news," as the latest reports indicate that CNN is refusing to comment on their recently retracted, deleted article they were forced to apologize for, even to members of their own media team. They have also now issued an internal memo that was leaked online, imposing strict new rules on any reporting that is Russia related.
Perhaps the most ironic part of the whole CNN drama is that now the outlet that has gleefully reported "leaks" from "unnamed sources, resulting in two fake news articles in June alone having to be retracted and/or changed and corrected, is that they are now "scrambling internally to determine who is leaking the information out of the network to news outlets like BuzzFeed News and Breitbart News, but they cannot find the leaks since hundreds of employees work there and most are upset with the way Zucker and others in senior management are handling this."
I believe that is called "poetic justice."
SUPREME COURT HAMMERS ANOTHER NAIL INTO THE 'RESISTANCE' COFFIN
Losing last week's GA special election, which was hailed as "largely seen as a referendum against Trump," (until the Republican candidate won after Democrats sank millions and millions of dollars into the race) capped off a brutal six months for the "resistance," but today, the Supreme Court just hammered another nail into the movements coffin.
A number of issues were addressed by the Supreme Court today, including their agreement to hear a case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding due to his religious beliefs, where the lower court ruled he was in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, to which the baker is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.
The Supreme Court has also ruled in another case seen as a win those of faith by declaring that for a state to deny state funding to a church (in this case to provide aid for a playground) simply because it is a church, is unconstitutional.
The biggest news of the day, the nail in the "resistance" coffin, which has dominated social media all day with multiple hashtags on Twitter, with liberal "resistance" activists completely melting down, is the Supreme Court not only agreed to hear the "travel ban" associated with President Trump's Executive Order, but has reinstated the majority of that ban that was blocked from being implemented by lower courts, until they hear it in the Fall.
While the high court offered minor limits by way of asserting those with connections to the U.S., family members, jobs, or students, not be part of the ban, they state the lower courts that placed the injunction against the travel ban, went too far by blocking the Executive order in its entirety.
Page 11-12 from the ruling states:
But the injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself. See id., at 762 (“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . ha[s] no constitutional right of entry to this country”). So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of §2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below.
At the same time, the Government’s interest in enforcing §2(c), and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States. Indeed, EO–2 itself distinguishes between foreign nationals who have some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who do not, by establishing a case-by-case waiver system primarily for the benefit of individuals in the former category. See, e.g., §§3(c)(i)–(vi). The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else
We accordingly grant the Government’s stay applications in part and narrow the scope of the injunctions as to §2(c). The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii. In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2.
The Supreme Court also makes it clear who is considered "connected" and has legitimate ties to the U.S., and who doesn't, as well as preemptively blocking groups or organizations that might attempt to create artificial ties in order to bypass the ban, by writing the following into the ruling:
The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.
President Trump issued a statement that says "Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.
My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today’s ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation’s homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court’s decision was 9-0."
This is being hailed as a major victory for president Trump as well as the rule of law, and a slap at the the judicial activism that was used instead of the law in the lower court's over-reaching injunction which blocked the entire EO from being implemented.
Immediately after the ruling, "9th circuit" started trending on Twitter, with calls to break it up, as people highlighted their judicial activism versus the law, with President Trump's son Donald Trump Jr. weighing in by stating "SCOTUS upholds temporary travel ban. I guess the 9th circuit activism is wrong again??? #maga."
Every member of the so-called "resistance" has failed, been completely humiliated, lost revenue as Kathy Griffin lost all her tour dates when companies cancelled her scheduled appearances after her mock beheading image, and as I stated at the beginning of this article, a wounded animal is the most dangerous, and now there are tens of thousands of those "resistance" members that are wounded.....and dangerous.
This is going to get ugly folks, keep your eyes open and powder dry.
Last note- While Trump supporters have been justifiably frustrated by the media's war on the Trump administration, the lies by the media and Democratic politicians, and the liberal judicial activism on the part of the 9th circuit court of appeals in regards to the travel ban, the President did exactly the right thing in taking it to the Supreme Court rather than ignoring the initial rulings, as Obama did and was rightly criticized for in the past.
Had Trump simply ignored the lower courts rather than asking the Supreme Court to stay the injunction, we would have seen constant headlines of how he was violating the constitution, but how often do we see the MSM actually declaring "victory" and "big win" for President Trump as the headlines below do.
I think the word "victory" was too much for Reuters because when we click on the link we see they changed that headline shown above to "U.S. Supreme Court breathes new life into Trump's travel ban."
