Trump is RIGHT when it comes to the law regarding his travel ban executive order, and the WaPo is WRONG

The Washington Post is at it again. The paper’s never-ending quest to denigrate, delegitimize, mock, and dispute President Donald Trump – no matter what the issue, no matter what the cause – has reached the point of lunacy.

In short, the paper’s managing editors and reporters have become so unhinged when it comes to coverage of the 45^th president, they will twist facts, massage details, and lie outright to “prove” Trump is “wrong.”

The latest incident has the paper “analyzing” Trump’s comments regarding California’s refusal to recognize the federal government’s superior role in deciding immigration policy and enforcing immigration law. (RELATED: Keep up with the seesaw battle between the Trump administration and sanctuary cities at InvasionUSA.news)

As you may have seen, Trump was interviewed by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly during the pre-game portion of Super Bowl LI. During the interview, the subject of sanctuary cities in California – as well as the state’s push to become a sanctuary state – came up.

“I just spent the week in California,” O’Reilly began. “As you know, they are now voting on whether they should become a sanctuary state. So California and the U.S.A. are on a collision course. How do you see it?”

“Well, I think it’s ridiculous,” Trump responded. “Sanctuary cities, as you know I’m very much opposed to sanctuary cities. They breed crime, there’s a lot of problems. We have to well defund, we give tremendous amounts of money to California. . . . California in many ways is out of control, as you know. Obviously the voters agree or otherwise they wouldn’t have voted for me.”

“So defunding is your weapon of choice?” O’Reilly pushed.

“A weapon. I don’t want to defund the state,” Trump noted. “I don’t want to defund anybody. I want to give them the money they need to properly operate as a city or a state. If they’re going to have sanctuary cities, we may have to do that. Certainly that would be a weapon.”

Well, that was just too much for the Post, which launched into “fact-check” mode:

We’ll note first of all that sanctuary cities do not “breed crime.” Analysis of FBI data shows that crime in sanctuary cities is generally lower than in non-sanctuary cities. But that’s beside the point. 

More importantly, Trump says two things. First, that California is “out of control.” Second, that he doesn’t want to yank federal funding from the state, but he will if he has to.

The paper trotted out some facts and figures – crime rates in sanctuary cities, the amount of federal tax money the state pays (more than it receives), yada, yada, yada. The paper then claimed that Trump is fixated on California because he’s just “mad” that most voters there voted for a criminal, Hillary Clinton.

Only constitutional simpletons with less than a high school-level grasp of civics and an out-sized hatred for Trump would publish such irrelevant nonsense.

First of all, this has nothing to do with charts, FBI statistics, or the amount of federal tax money California contributes to the Treasury.

It has everything to do with the rule of law. And in this arena, it is Trump, not California Gov. Jerry Brown and the communists who run the state legislature, who is right. (RELATED: Will constitutionalists in Congress succeed in reigning in sanctuary cities? Stay tuned at Conservative.news)

Consider:

— The Constitution contains what is commonly referred to as the “supremacy clause.” Article VI, Paragraph 2 “establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence of state laws, and even state constitutions,” Cornell University Law School notes. So any and all immigration-related statutes in U.S. Code are supreme when compared to state and local immigration statutes.

— Article I, Sect. 8 of the Constitution gives Congress – not Brown or the California legislature – authority to make all rules governing “naturalization” (immigration rules, to those of you in Sacramento).

The Post may have some facts and figures correct, but they are beside the point. The issue is whether or not a) Trump and the federal government have the lawful authority to enforce all immigration laws (they do); and b) whether California has a legal right to resist the enforcement of those laws (it doesn’t).

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

WashingtonPost.com

Law.Cornell.edu

NewsFakes.com

GoodGopher.com