How Abraham Lincoln set the precedent for Trump’s deportation authority



Across the United States, Americans of all backgrounds recognize Juneteenth on June 19, commemorating the day in 1865 when enslaved people in Confederate-held Texas learned of President Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.

The same legal reasoning that ended slavery also supports a president’s authority to remove foreign nationals designated as domestic terrorists. President Donald Trump has the constitutional power to act in the interest of national security by deporting those who threaten the country.

When we celebrate Juneteenth, we implicitly acknowledge broad presidential national security powers.

Lawyers and judges study statutes and decide cases, but they rarely confront the true scope of executive power. The Constitution designates the president as commander in chief, but it provides little detail on the extent of that authority.

The closest legal precedent on executive power is Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Supreme Court upheld the race-based internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. In 1983, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel overturned the decision as applied to Fred Korematsu and others, but the broader question of presidential national security powers remained unresolved.

President Trump does not need to justify his actions under the much-criticized Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Instead, he should invoke the same principle that underlies Juneteenth: the federal government’s power to secure liberty by enforcing the law and protecting the nation.

At the time of the Civil War, slaves were considered the property of their owners, and the Fifth Amendment dictated that the government could not emancipate them without due process and just compensation paid to their owners. Additionally, the execrable 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision and the Fugitive Slave Act reinforced legal support for slavery.

Despite those legal obstacles, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves only in the Confederate states at war with the Union. Those in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri remained enslaved because their states were not at war with the country.

As a skilled lawyer, Lincoln understood that his national security powers, implied within his role as commander in chief, superseded constitutional rights in times of war. He did not seek congressional approval, compensate slaveholders, or seek the approval of the courts. In essence, when we celebrate Juneteenth, we implicitly acknowledge broad presidential national security powers.

Historical precedent reinforces this principle. During the Whiskey Rebellion, President George Washington used force to suppress dissent without formal wartime authorization, arresting rebels without warrants. Congress authorized a militia for Washington but did not grant him wartime powers. In his efforts to quell the uprising, he ordered door-to-door searches and forcibly arrested suspected rebels without warrants, bringing several to the Capitol for trial.

The most compelling legal validation of these powers came in United States v. Felt. Mark Felt, the FBI associate director best known as Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal, was later prosecuted for authorizing warrantless searches to track terrorist groups like the Weather Underground and the Palestinian Liberation Organization following the 1972 Munich Olympics attacks.

At his trial, five former attorneys general, President Richard Nixon, and Felt himself testified that presidents and their agents are not always bound by the Bill of Rights when national security is at stake. Their argument underscored a long-standing reality: The executive branch has exercised extraordinary authority to protect the country in moments of national peril.

Felt’s controversial prosecution led to the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, which established that national security searches intended to prevent terrorist attacks need not adhere to standard constitutional rights. FISA effectively codified a national security exception to otherwise conflicting constitutional mandates.

Taken together, the Whiskey Rebellion, Juneteenth, FISA, and United States v. Felt demonstrate that national security concerns can, at times, take precedence over constitutional protections.

How does this apply to President Trump’s deportation policy? As commander in chief, he has determined that the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs pose a national security threat. He classified these groups as terrorist organizations, recognizing that they entered the United States with organized criminal intent.

Most Americans would agree that, before a formal declaration of war against Germany, President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have ordered the assassination of Adolf Hitler. Similarly, few would argue against detaining Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before 9/11. The United States need not wait for an atrocity to occur before acting decisively.

We elect the president to make tough national security decisions, not to be second-guessed by judges from another branch of government. The limits of this power remain open to debate, however. While courts may take a restrictive view, the subject is rarely taught in law schools or settled in case law.

Historical and legal precedent suggest that when national security is at stake, terrorists are not entitled to lawyers or pre-deportation hearings. As counterintuitive as it may seem, Juneteenth itself sets a precedent. Again, slaveholders were not granted due process hearings before the Emancipation Proclamation, nor did they receive Fifth Amendment compensation for the loss of enslaved labor.

When dealing with foreign criminal organizations, we should not analyze these disputes through the lens of antiseptic legal theory. National security demands a more hardheaded approach. As the saying goes, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — swift deportations may be part of that price.

Clock ticks for Trump’s immigration crackdown



On December 7, 2015, during the Iowa caucus campaign, Donald Trump announced his plan for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Nearly a decade later, the argument for such a shutdown has intensified. Pro-Hamas demonstrations among Islamic immigrants highlight concerns, and Trump’s presidency could represent the final opportunity to fulfill his pledge and prevent what some view as an impending European-style influence by Sharia-adherent invaders. The question remains: Is Trump up to the task?

Seven months before Trump’s statement, I wrote a column warning that Islamic immigration had doubled since 9/11 and was the fastest-growing subset of America’s already substantial annual intake. Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. issued 1,628,854 green cards to immigrants from 43 predominantly Muslim countries.

With greater political capital and clearer legal precedent, Trump has an opportunity to expand his ban.

Now, nearly a decade later and nine years into Trump’s leadership of the Republican Party, the numbers tell a sobering story. From 2014 to 2023, the U.S. granted 1,453,940 green cards to the same 43 countries, averaging 145,395 per year — higher than the 125,000 annual average of the previous decade. This increase would be even greater if not for COVID-19, which slowed immigration for over two years. In 2023 alone, about 170,000 immigrants arrived from these countries, excluding at least 100,000 foreign students from the same regions.

Since 9/11, the United States has issued roughly three million green cards to nationals of predominantly Islamic countries, along with several million non-immigrant visas. This figure does not account for the significant number of illegal immigrants from these countries, particularly since Joe Biden took office.

In comparison, England’s total Muslim population stands at about 3.8 million, yet the country has experienced widespread challenges from incorrigible Islamic subversion. While the United States’ larger size makes assimilation challenges relatively less troublesome, the sheer numbers remain critical when assessing the potential for radicalization and domestic terrorism threats.

Shouldn’t we prioritize assimilating those already here and addressing the growing problem of homegrown radicalization before expanding immigration from nations plagued by Islamic supremacism?

With a history of Islamic terror attacks on American soil and increasing cultural subversion marked by anti-Jewish hatred and pro-Hamas sentiment, why hasn’t the Trump administration acted with greater urgency to halt immigration? The Trump v. Hawaii decision affirms Trump’s clear authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict immigration categories in the national interest. The lack of decisive action is difficult to reconcile with these pressing concerns.

During Trump’s first term, an October 2017 order banned visas from countries including Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, as well as North Korea and South Sudan. The ban on Iraq was later lifted, and restrictions on other countries were limited to specific visa categories or shorter durations. Combined with lower court injunctions and Biden’s subsequent election, these policies had little impact on the overall flow of radical Islamists into the United States.

Now, with greater political capital and clearer legal precedent, Trump has an opportunity to expand this ban. The focus should extend beyond countries lacking “vetting” tools or diplomatic cooperation to include any nation with a significant presence of Islamic terrorism and anti-American sentiment. The growing size of pro-terrorist rallies in the U.S. underscores this urgency — these demonstrations grow because the number of immigrants admitted from such countries increases each year.

Trump’s use of Section 212(f) immigration authority will serve as an early indicator of his presidency’s direction. Cutting spending and addressing complex domestic issues may lack immediate momentum, and deportations require significant resources to reverse Biden’s immigration surge. However, restricting further immigration from these countries, allowing time to assimilate record numbers already here, is a step Trump can take swiftly and with settled legal precedent.

If not now, when? The clock is ticking.

Biden releases bin Laden bodyguards, other alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to Oman



As his days in office draw to a close, President Joe Biden has released nearly a dozen Yemenis from the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba as part of a larger goal of closing the facility permanently.

On Monday, the Department of Defense announced that 11 prisoners would be transferred to Oman: Uthman Abd al-Rahim Muhammad Uthman, Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi, Khalid Ahmed Qassim, Suhayl Abdul Anam al Sharabi, Hani Saleh Rashid Abdullah, Tawfiq Nasir Awad Al-Bihani, Omar Mohammed Ali al-Rammah, Sanad Ali Yislam Al Kazimi, Hassan Muhammad Ali Bib Attash, Sharqawi Abdu Ali Al Hajj, and Abd Al-Salam Al-Hilah.

Both al-Alwi and al Sharabi worked as bodyguards for the late Osama bin Laden, former leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda and organizer of the 9/11 attacks.

Al-Alwi, who was also allegedly a member of Al-Qaeda, served on bin Laden's security detail in Afghanistan. A 2016 intelligence file noted that he had been "pardoned" for a number of infractions at Gitmo since his capture and suggested that he may still have an "extremist mindset" based on some of his statements while in prison, the New York Post reported.

In addition to working as bin Laden's bodyguard, al Sharabi, another suspected member of Al-Qaeda, was also allegedly involved in "an aborted 9/11-style hijacking plot in Southwest Asia," according to his 2020 intelligence file.

None of the 11 transferred detainees has ever been charged with a crime, though American courts have never firmly settled whether enemy combatants ... should be treated as accused criminals.

All 11 Gitmo prisoners are Yemeni nationals who were captured shortly after 9/11. They will all be transferred to Oman as part of a pledge from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in September 2023.

"The United States appreciates the willingness of the Government of Oman and other partners to support ongoing U.S. efforts focused on responsibly reducing the detainee population and ultimately closing the Guantanamo Bay facility," the DOD press release said.

None of the 11 transferred detainees has ever been charged with a crime, though American courts have never firmly settled whether enemy combatants captured on a battlefield should be treated as accused criminals, conferred with full due process rights and subject to the justice system.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, is an exception. After more than 20 years at Gitmo, Mohammed is expected to avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty to plotting the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Fox News reported.

Co-conspirators Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who have also been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2003, were also offered plea deals.

With the 11 detainees gone, Gitmo now has just 15 remaining prisoners, a tiny fraction of the number of prisoners held there at the peak of the War on Terror. In 2003, the facility housed 680 prisoners.

H/T: The Post Millennial

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Homeland Security Targets Democrats’ Opponents Instead Of Stopping Terrorists

Expensive and comprehensive censorship tools somehow didn't flag the Facebook posts of the alleged New Orleans terrorist proclaiming his fealty to a violent death cult.

Blaze News original: Christian fighting for free speech scores major victory, displays Nativity scene on US Capitol steps



A former pastor who has been fighting against restrictions on First Amendment freedoms scored a major legal victory earlier this year, prompting him to set up a Nativity scene on the steps of the U.S. Capitol building, a peaceful demonstration that would have gotten him arrested just a few short months ago, he told Blaze News.

At noon on December 10, Rev. Patrick Mahoney — a reformed Presbyterian minister who has spent the last 32 years as the director the Christian Defense Coalition based in Washington, D.C. — brought statues representing baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the wise men, and even a few animals and arranged them on the southeastern steps of the U.S. Capitol, the area K-LOVE described as "the House of Representatives side."

Then Mahoney; his wife of 51 years, Katie; and only three other guests were then able to gather round, read some scripture verses, and sing Christmas carols without fear of reprisal from law enforcement. The event lasted for about an hour.

— (@)
— (@)

According to Mahoney, this Nativity scene was a historic moment as it marked the first time ever that a Nativity scene was put on display on the steps of the Capitol.

"We read the Christmas story. We prayed for our country. We stressed how important the message of hope and peace that Jesus brought ... through his birth was open to all humanity," Mahoney told Blaze News. "We prayed for our government. We prayed for the new incoming government."

"So we celebrated the birth of Christ as the most significant moment in world history," he continued.

"We rejoiced in that."

The fight for the First Amendment

In the land of the free and the home of the brave, where freedoms regarding speech and religious expressions are enshrined into the Constitution, such peaceful events held in our nation's capital should hardly be remarkable. But Rev. Mahoney knows better, understanding that such liberties have been readily sacrificed in recent years in the name of safety and security.

The first major event that curtailed civil liberties in D.C. was 9/11. Shortly after the attacks, which included a deadly attack on the nearby Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol Police decided to prevent Americans from demonstrating at the Capitol building, according to Eric Sell, an attorney with the Center for American Liberty, which represents Mahoney.

"It's roughly 250 feet circle all around the Capitol building, which includes the eastern steps, and it's totally off limits to demonstration activity," Sell explained to Blaze News.

'No person or group of any size may engage in demonstration activity on the steps of the United States Capitol.'

For more than two decades, Capitol Police did not change that policy. In fact, they worked to enhance restrictions even further after January 6, 2021.

Mahoney learned firsthand just how strictly those enhanced restrictions were enforced. In April 2021, just a few short months after the riot at the Capitol, Mahoney tried to host a prayer vigil on Good Friday as he had in previous years — and was soon arrested.

Photo shared with Blaze News. Used with permission

Mahoney was charged with unlawful assembly and later paid an estimated fine of $125. The heightened security restrictions on the steps at the Capitol building remained in place though, effectively prohibiting regular Americans from speaking openly outside a government building they paid for with their taxes.

"It had just been members of Congress who were able to use the Capitol steps virtually whenever they wanted to," Sell said. "And what they would do is they would often invite their allies up there with them."

"But members of the public couldn't do that," Sell added.

Traffic Regulations released by the Capitol Police Board in January 2024 reiterated the restrictions regarding the Capitol steps:

"No person or group of any size may engage in demonstration activity on the steps of the United States Capitol, on the steps of any building on Capitol Grounds or in any area otherwise closed or restricted for official use."

Mahoney refused to accept the ongoing suspension of American civil liberties and sued the Capitol Police Board to end the restrictions. The process to end the regulations was long but quite successful.

"After 18 months, we secured the right back to peaceful demonstrations, back to free speech activities, our Good Friday services," he told Blaze News, "but there was one area that still we were seeking free speech rights on, and that were the Capitol steps."

Mahoney's determination to reclaim that critically important public area eventually paid off earlier this year. In May, James Boasberg, the chief judge of the D.C. District Court who was appointed by Obama, ruled that "the ban on all non-sponsored speech on the eastern steps" of the U.S. Capitol was "unconstitutional."

Sell told Blaze News that this decision formally classified the eastern steps of the Capitol as "a traditional public forum" where First Amendment rights are strongly protected.

"It's much harder for the government to prohibit speech that's in a traditional public forum," Sell explained. "And having the Capitol steps be determined by a federal court to be a traditional public forum is an incredible victory for free speech because that means people are allowed to go there and express their messages."

While Capitol Police and other government officials "can still require permits and have other kind of regulations," Sell continued, they can no longer "prohibit speech there outright like they have been doing since 2001."

Mahoney said that the Capitol steps are "the people's house" and that the people, not just congressmen and their "lobbyist" friends, have a right to express themselves and their religious beliefs there without fear.

"It doesn't belong to an elite group of the political class, but every citizen, whatever their views or values are, should have the right to freely go to the United States Capitol and air them."

The Capitol Police Board did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

A 'decisive legal victory' — and yet ...

Shortly after Judge Boasberg issued the ruling, Rev. Mahoney knew how he would would celebrate it: by hosting a Christmas celebration in December complete with a Nativity scene and carol-singing. Mahoney indicated to Blaze News that the eastern steps were ground zero for "the war on Christmas."

"Having this event on the steps of the Capitol — the most powerful public forum, the most powerful public place in the world — if we can come and worship freely there and celebrate Christmas there and express our religious freedoms there, then we've won the war on Christmas and the war on Christmas is over," he said.

Other Christians and Christian organizations view the ruling and the Nativity scene at the Capitol building similarly.

Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, director of the Conscience Project, told Blaze News:

The Nativity display set up on the steps of the US Capitol building by the Christian Defense Coalition — a group of private citizens — is a wonderful expression of the freedoms all Americans enjoy. Peaceful demonstrations in places traditionally considered public forums don’t lack their protection under the Constitution because they have a religious character. All defenders of treasured American freedoms, whether they are Christian or not, should celebrate that this one battle in the “War on Christmas” has been won.

In a statement to Blaze News, Erika Ahern, associate editor for CatholicVote and the LOOP, said:

In this historic first, we see a sign of Christmas joy and hope for our great nation. Public displays of the Nativity of Jesus acknowledge the central role of religion in American history, as well as the reality that the majority of Americans honor Christ at Christmas. Much is made of our political divisions, but the display of the Holy Family is a sign that America is healing.

Sell likewise described the ruling as "incredible" and as a "decisive legal victory."

'If we did this eight months ago or last Christmastime, we would have been arrested.'

Unfortunately, the ruling still has one major restriction attached to it. Even though Judge Boasberg found that forbidding free speech on the eastern steps was "unconstitutional," he nevertheless agreed to severely limit the number of people who can exercise their First Amendment rights there, at least for the time being.

In fact, only Mahoney and four of his friends are permitted to participate until the new administration is inaugurated next month.

"The government had asked the district court to stay the injunction with respect to everyone except for Patrick Mahoney," Sell told Blaze News. "[The judge] was concerned that the government raised legitimate concerns about safety from the election until the inauguration."

Though only five total people could officially participate in the Christmas event, plenty of tourists enjoyed it so much that they stopped to take selfies with Mahoney, his wife, and the Nativity figures.

"People loved it," Mahoney said with pride. "They really rejoiced in it."

Photo shared with Blaze News. Used with permission.

Sell described the temporary restriction as "ridiculous" and noted that even the American Civil Liberties Union was incensed about it and wanted to get involved.

"We've had some conversations with the D.C. chapter of the ACLU," Sell said. "They are interested in this case. They support Reverend Mahoney, and they support the public's right to speak on the Capitol steps. It sounds like they may submit an amicus brief in support of us on appeal."

Though Mahoney said he does not often see eye to eye with the ACLU, he appreciates the organization's willingness to stand with him in the fight for free speech. Sell indicated that an amicus brief from the organization could influence the courts.

"Having them file a brief in support we think helps because it shows that this isn't something that's confined to the ideological right or the ideological left," Sell said. "People across the spectrum believe in free speech in this country, and the fact that you have the ACLU coming in and filing a brief shows that this is about free speech. It's not about right-wing or left-wing ideology."

The ACLU did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

For now, Mahoney is just grateful that a federal judge, an Obama appointee no less, sided in favor of the First Amendment.

"If we did this eight months ago or last Christmastime, we would have been arrested," he said.

Despite the progress, Mahoney warns Christians and all Americans of good will not to become complacent about their civil liberties.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," Mahoney said, quoting an inscription on a sculpture at the National Archives in D.C. "And I think particularly the faith community needs to take that to heart, that we must continually speak out and fight to ensure that every American is free to express their religious views and beliefs and values in the public square, how they raise their children, how they conduct their lives, without government harassment or opposition."

He also indicated to Blaze News that he is optimistic that the First Amendment is in better hands with President-elect Donald Trump than it would have been under Vice President Kamala Harris, who he suggested has "animus and hostility toward people of faith."

"I think one of the key undercurrents, like in the election, obviously immigration, crime, the economy were key issues," Mahoney said. "But I think bubbling under that for the 80% of evangelicals who voted for President Trump was the sense that our religious freedoms would be protected."

"One of the most dangerous things in America is when our federal law enforcement is turned against their own citizens, especially people of faith," he added, referencing the peaceful pro-life protesters jailed under the Biden-Harris administration.

"It's dangerous."

H/T: The Patrick Madrid Show

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Don’t Try To Bully Me!’: GOP Rep, Secret Service Director Have Screaming Match Over 9/11 Event At Hearing

'I actually responded to Ground Zero'

Trump Should Immediately Stop Federal Agencies From Hiding Documents By Needlessly Marking Them Classified

Files should be open to the public unless otherwise specified, not secret by default. We the people have a right to know what our government does in our name, and to know our own history.

Judge Reinstates Plea Deal for 9/11 Masterminds

A military judge reinstated the Defense Department’s plea deal with the accused masterminds of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, saying it is “valid,” “enforceable,” and must remain in effect.

The post Judge Reinstates Plea Deal for 9/11 Masterminds appeared first on .

Have we forgotten our enemies since 9/11?



Ten years ago, I was with the U.S. Army in an interrogation room at the detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan. Through a translator, I asked the captured Taliban commander sitting before me how long he intended to keep fighting us. “You have me in a cage; my fight is over for now,” he said. “But my children will fight you, and if they don’t win, their children will fight you. If it takes a thousand years, we will win.”

Our enemies are focused on fighting the long-term war against the West, continuously educating the next generation to pick up the torch. In fact, Taliban is the Pashto word for “students,” named after the graduates of the schools the Taliban and their allied groups run where children are indoctrinated to become fighters in the jihadist cause.

We must educate our youth about our history and who our enemies are, or others will do it with a distorted version of the facts.

In 2021, when the Taliban rolled into Kabul, the newsreels were filled with images of young fighters, many of whom were not even born when the war started, just going to show how effective this strategy of generational warfare has been.

A little over a decade prior to that interaction in Afghanistan, I vividly recall — as does every American who lived through it — watching the Twin Towers fall, an event that profoundly shaped not only my life but my entire generation. But what do those here in the United States that were born in the aftermath of 9/11, or shortly before it, know about our enemies?

It was 23 years ago, which is a significant block of our nation’s population, including much of our military. Have we taught our children about not just what happened on September 11, 2001, but about who our enemies are who carried out such atrocities? Al-Qaeda was just one group in a long list of enemies who share the same goals and who unquestionably have this generation in their crosshairs, whether or not our children know it.

When Hamas terrorists attacked, murdered, raped, and captured civilian concertgoers and other Israeli civilians in their homes on October 7, 2023, we saw American students come out in droves on campuses to support the terrorists, something that would have been unthinkable in the early 2000s. A survey conducted of U.S. college students by Generation Lab found that 12% saw the terrorist attack as a justified act of resistance by Hamas and 48% did not even blame the terrorist organization for it.

One in eight college students openly supporting a terrorist group’s slaughter of innocent civilians is not a majority, obviously, but it is a number that should appall any sane person. We are not doing our job to properly educate the next generation.

In response to the campus protests, a congressional committee subpoenaed the presidents of several of America’s most prestigious universities, and we witnessed gross incompetence and an unwillingness to answer simple questions on the subject, ultimately leading to the resignation of two of the three subpoenaed presidents.

I reached out to two members of that committee for their thoughts. “Our colleges and universities are failing the moral test of ensuring our students can distinguish good from evil,” Rep. Michelle Steel (R-Calif.) told me. “Now more than ever, moral clarity is needed in higher education to ensure future generations know who the real enemies of America are.”

But what are we doing as parents to ensure our children know who our enemies are before they reach adulthood?

“After witnessing the woefully inadequate response by the leaders of some of America's most prestigious universities in dealing with pro-Hamas and anti-Semitic sentiment on college campuses, it has become all the more apparent how critical it is for the next generation to understand the threats we face to freedom and American values,” Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) said.

We must educate our youth about our history and who our enemies are, or others will do it with a distorted version of the facts. Today, jihadist enemies are waging ideological battles in America rather than on foreign battlefields. They understand that the next generation of presidents, governors, representatives, and voters are in our schools and colleges right now, and they are effectively reaching them. It is our responsibility to prepare these young people by teaching them the truth about our enemies. The strength and future of our nation depend on it.

‘Too Late In The Game’: Defense Secretary’s Last-Minute Decision To Toss 9/11 Plea Deal Likely To Be Rejected By Judge

'Too late in the game'