B-Man

.

.

Sounds familiar,

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) grants the U.S. President the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens if their entry is found to be detrimental to the interests of the United States. This power has been used by various presidential administrations to impose travel restrictions based on factors like national security, public health (e.g., COVID-19), or objectionable conduct, often via presidential proclamation. Key aspects of Section 212(f) "Detrimental to the interests of the United States": The basis for these suspensions is the President's finding that an alien's entry would be harmful to the nation. Wide range of applications: This authority can be used to target specific classes of people or all aliens, based on a wide variety of concerns. National security: Used to block entry for those associated with terrorist groups or other threats. Public health: Used to restrict entry for individuals from countries with high rates of disease outbreaks, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conduct: Used to block individuals engaged in objectionable or illicit activities, such as corruption. Presidential authority: The statute gives the President broad power to issue proclamations that suspend or restrict the entry of noncitizens into the U.S.

Media and ICE: Weasel Words Mitch Berg https://hotair.com/mitch_berg/2025/11/29/from-the-party-that-brought-you-no-kings-n3809323

America Is The World’s Hottest Economy Investment is flooding in, growth is accelerating, and free markets are firing again. Lawrence Kudlow https://tippinsights.com/america-is-the-worlds-hottest-economy/#google_vignette

I would invite the other PPP brethren to examine the last 12 threads boosted by Grandstander in the last hour. None of them are regarding any news stories that are being discussed nationwide. It is all about him boosting his own sh*t. Worst poster here.

The story comes a week after six Democrat Senators and Congressmen, now known as the Seditious Six, posted a video that seemed to encourage members of the armed forces to defy "illegal" orders from President Trump. The Department of War spokesman, Sean Parnell, denied that the event had occurred. His deputy, Kinglsey Wilson, affirmed that all lethal strikes on the drug runners are legitimate and based on the designation of the drug cartels as Designated Terrorist Organizations, and a presidential declaration that a "non-international armed conflict" existed between the drug cartels and the United States. Putting aside the lack of evidence supporting this alleged event and the administration's denial that it even happened, there is a helluva lot of assumptions involved to conclude that this is a war crime. Properly viewed, this article, with its questionable provenance, is designed to provide cover for the Seditious Six and their fellow travelers so they don't get humiliated like Colorado Democrat Representative Jason Crow (CO-06) when asked for an example of the "illegal" orders they are railing against. The bottom line here is that no evidence exists that this event happened, or, if it did, that it played out as described. The fact that no other major media outlet has picked up the story is notable. And that the Post's story is essentially a regurgitation of a nearly three-month-old article from loony-left outlet The Intercept is also suspect; see U.S. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors. Unless a lot more information comes out making the case that this was a crime, this article should be considered as The Washington Post doing what it always does when there is a Republican in the White House. https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/11/29/washington-post-accuses-pete-hegseth-of-illegal-order-to-kill-drug-runners-but-is-it-real-n2196655 .

In an article published in the left-wing rag, Kayyem makes a classic 'But her skirt was too short' argument to blame President Trump's deployment of the National Guard in the city for provoking the attack.

Doesn't It Always: Europe’s Peace Plan Oozes With Reliance on the US Anthony J. Constantini FTA: The trouble begins in point four, which states that a “US-led international ceasefire monitoring” infrastructure will be introduced. Already, the Europeans are telling on themselves: To monitor a ceasefire for a regional war, squarely on their continent, they foresee a US-led approach. In their own peace plan, they are not capable of envisioning themselves as leading the charge. In fact, the entire document is oozing with a reliance on the United States. Even when there is no direct mention of America, it is clear that they expect America to do the heavy lifting. Take point 10: “Ukraine receives robust legally binding security guarantees, including from the US, (Article 5-like agreement) to prevent future aggression. https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/11/europes-peace-plan-oozes-with-reliance-on-the-us/ https://hotair.com/headlines/2025/11/29/doesnt-it-always-europes-peace-plan-oozes-with-reliance-on-the-us-n3809348

.