So it's Stephen Miller weekend.
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR: Last night, what you saw was the president of the United States sending a powerful and unmistakable signal to North Korea and the entire world as he stood shoulder to shoulder with the prime minister of Japan and declared our steadfast and unwavering support of the alliance. And the meaning of that symbolist will be lost on no one.
I think the most charitable description of what Trump did was hide behind Japan's skirts:
"North Korea's most recent missile launch is absolutely intolerable. North Korea must fully comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions," Abe told a news conference at Palm Beach, Florida.
Trump spoke after Abe and gave a one-sentence statement: "I just want everybody to understand and fully know that the United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100%."
Chris Wallace seems to agree with me:
WALLACE: But you say it’s an unmistakable message. Other than the fact that we’re standing with Japan, what’s the message?
MILLER: The message is, is that we are going to reinforce and strengthen our vital alliances in the Pacific region as part of our strategy to deter and prevent the increasing hostility that we have seen in recent years from the North Korean regime. More broadly, as you know, we are inheriting a situation around the world today that is deeply troubling. The situation in North Korea, the situation in Iraq, the situation in Syria, the situation in Yemen, and this president is committed to a fundamental rebuilding of the armed forces of the United States that will again send a signal to the world that America's strength will not be tested.
Which is not at all what Trump said, but: no matter. Besides, we can't prevent countries from testing America's strength; what we can only do is try to stand up to the test of strength.
And on the issue of the 9th Circuit and the travel ban, Miller just wanders off into la-la land:
MILLER: No, the Ninth Circuit has a long history of being overturned and Ninth Circuit has a long history of overreaching. We don’t have judicial supremacy in this country. We have three coequal branches of government.
The Ninth Circuit cannot confer on to a Yemeni national living in Yemen, with no status in our country a constitutional right to enter our country. Such a right to exist, Chris, that would mean every time we denied a visa to a foreign national, they can sue an American court for damages for lost benefits in terms of welfare and employment. That would be ludicrous.
This, of course, is not what the 9th Circuit did; at all.
Eighty million people visited this country through airports, land ports, and seaports. Of course, the president has the authority to impose moderate, necessary and sensible restrictions, including putting in place new vetting procedures to protect this country. That power was delegated to him explicitly by Congress, and adheres to him under its Article 2 powers under the U.S. Constitution.
But the Constitution also requires a rational basis for the exercise of governmental power, by the President or the Congress.
This is a judicial usurpation of the power. It is a violation of judges’ proper roles in litigating disputes. We will fight it. And we will make sure that we take action to keep from happening in the future what’s happened in the past.
Or they won't fight it, and they'll just issue another executive order. And "in the past" means all the terrorist attacks carried out on American soil by American citizens?
We’ve had hundreds of individuals enter the country through the immigration system on visas, who’ve gone on to do enormous harm to this country from 9/11, through San Bernardino, to the Boston bombing, in Chattanooga, and on and on and on it goes.
Should we refer to that White House list yet again, and the fact that the incidents he mentions here were all committed by what that list called "U.S. Person[s]"? Is the Trump White House proposing a temporary travel ban, or cutting off all contact with Middle Eastern countries?
And, of course, it's all about a fear of brown people:
But not to get off track here, because we are going all over the place, let's just be very clear and straightforward saying the following: The United States of America has a terrorism problem. We’ve had hundreds cases of foreign national entering our country from other countries and plotting, attempting, or even carrying out terrorist attacks. We’ve spent countless dollars a year, and we have thousands of federal officers and investigators who do nothing but run around the country trying to stop terrorist attacks for no other reason because we make the mistake of letting people in who harbor hatred for this country.
Our immigration system should not be a vehicle for admitting people who have anything but love in their hearts for this nation and this Constitution.
Is that the extreme vetting Trump is talking about? Because by that standard Miller is going to throw out a lot of U.S. citizens who don't see eye to eye with him. I mean, when even the White House can't come up with a list of terrorist attacks on American soil committed by immigrants.....
And, from another "White House Advisor":
“I’ve actually spoken with the President himself about this problem, and we've talked about various ways you can go after this problem, you can find those people who are criminally voting illegally,” [Kansas Secretary of State Kris] Kobach said. “And, by the way, many of the people in Kansas have been voting in multiple elections we have found. So yes, there is a way to go after it, and I think the federal government will do it.”
I, myself, have actually voted in multiple elections. City council elections, school board elections, state elections, federal elections; and in several different cities in Texas alone! Well, over the past nearly 45 years....