Muslim Group with Ties to Terrorists Cheers anti-Trump Court Ruling

From the Daily Caller News Foundation:

A U.S. Islamic advocacy group suspected of conspiring with Hamas celebrated a federal court’s Thursday ruling against President Donald Trump’s latest travel sanctions.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which the FBI labeled as an “unindicted co-conspirator” with the terrorist group Hamas in 2009, released a statement Thursday celebrating the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the latest edition of Trump’s travel sanctions, which CAIR called “Trump’s ‘Muslim ban 3.0.’” CAIR continued its claim that the travel restrictions are part of a white supremacist agenda that specifically targets Muslims, despite the fact that the restriction is not actually a permanent ban and does not include include the two countries that hold one-quarter of the world’s Muslim population.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?

  • Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Fuel for Thought

“The Fourth Circuit’s decision is the latest blow to the Trump administration’s ugly white supremacist agenda,” said CAIR senior litigation attorney Gadeir Abbas.

The 4th Circuit’s ruling against the travel restrictions as unconstitutional will not go into effect, as the Supreme Court has already agreed to decide the issue in the spring and has allowed the Trump administration to enact the travel restrictions, despite the legal challenges levied against it.

The current iteration of Trump’s travel restrictions apply to Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen, which the administration labels high-risk countries due to hostile regimes, internal conflicts or terroristic activities. The circuit court’s majority, however, echoed CAIR’s allegations in its ruling against the travel restrictions, saying that the administration’s justification for the policy was different than its true intent in light of past statements from Trump that the justices interpreted to show an anti-Muslim bias.

“We are pleased that another court has recognized the enduring harm that American Muslims are suffering due to discriminatory and unconstitutional policies put forward by the Trump administration,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

CAIR’s rejoicing over a challenge to travel restrictions intended to prevent dangerous individuals coming to the U.S. and threaten the American people are suspect, however, given FBI Special Agent Lara Burns’s 2009 testimony that CAIR is a front for radical organizations that operate in the U.S. and a 15-year FBI investigation that revealed that CAIR conspired to raise funds for Hamas.

Constitution.com 🇺🇸

I am the supreme law of the United States. Originally comprising seven articles, I delineate the national frame of government. My first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it. I am regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.