I have read of some atrocities going on as such as losing over 17,00 children, I have to ask myself, can this be true?

Last month, Steven Wagner, an official with the department of health and human services, told a Senate committee that his agency had “lost track” of 1,475 immigrant children who had been seized after crossing the US-Mexican border; some of these kids, it was feared, had been turned over to human traffickers.
That also:

The ACLU and the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School have also charged that US border guards beat and abused migrant children, and threatened them with sexual violence.

and...that a Honduran mother had been separated from her 18-month-old toddler for two months. We’ve seen images of children caged in cells like stray puppies at a shelter; two, three and four year old children huddled on cots under thin Mylar blankets; of weeping parents embracing their terrified children while immigration officers wait to grab the tearful kids.

One has to ask is this who we are? Is this who Lady Liberty shines her torch for? Wasn't this the country held out its arms to the downtrodden seeking refuge? now we pull children away from mothers, or family, as the N**is did, pulling families apart?

Is this the way to go? or who we've become? There must be another way.

We use to be the country known for its humanitarian ways now we have the UN and foreign countries objecting to our inhumane practices. Welcome to the Trump administration and making us great again.

I have read of some atrocities going on as such as losing over 17,00 children, I have to ask myself, can this be true?

Last month, Steven Wagner, an official with the department of health and human services, told a Senate committee that his agency had “lost track” of 1,475 immigrant children who had been seized after crossing the US-Mexican border; some of these kids, it was feared, had been turned over to human traffickers.
That also:

The ACLU and the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School have also charged that US border guards beat and abused migrant children, and threatened them with sexual violence.

and...that a Honduran mother had been separated from her 18-month-old toddler for two months. We’ve seen images of children caged in cells like stray puppies at a shelter; two, three and four year old children huddled on cots under thin Mylar blankets; of weeping parents embracing their terrified children while immigration officers wait to grab the tearful kids.

One has to ask is this who we are? Is this who Lady Liberty shines her torch for? Wasn't this the country held out its arms to the downtrodden seeking refuge? now we pull children away from mothers, or family, as the N**is did, pulling families apart?

Is this the way to go? or who we've become? There must be another way.

We use to be the country known for its humanitarian ways now we have the UN and foreign countries objecting to our inhumane practices. Welcome to the Trump administration and making us great again.

The president continues to block his case and knows being sworn in to be his destruction, but does he have the right? ...and if he does would that be the right thing to do for the country?
No he doesn't have that right and here's who says so:

Laurence H. Tribe, chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007 and is vice-chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

Can a president pardon himself? Four days before Richard Nixon resigned, his own Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opined no, citing “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.” We agree.

Liberal Judge Re-Writes Constitution, Tells Trump How To Tweet
Last week a federal judge made the absurd ruling that President Donald Trump was constitutionally barred from blocking people on Twitter. So, yet another liberal judge is re-writing the constitution to suit the liberal agenda.

The Bill Clinton-appointed District Judge Naomi Buchwald ruled that the “interactive space” where Americans interact with Trump (that would be his Twitter account) is a “designated public forum” and therefore is covered by the First Amendment.

A left-wing group called the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven Americans who had been blocked by the president.

According to the Daily Herald:

U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald in New York rejected the administration’s arguments that the president, in blocking the users, was simply exercising the right a private individual might have, to choose “not to engage” with the individuals who brought the lawsuit. The audience for a reply on Trump’s account isn’t just Trump, she ruled, rejecting the administration’s argument. It’s the entire audience of millions who were deprived of the ability to read the replies the plaintiffs in the case posted.

“In sum,” she wrote, “we conclude that the blocking of the individual plaintiffs as a result of the political views they have expressed is impermissible under the First Amendment.”

The Herald went on to delineate the blocking of all seven of the plaintiffs, but we won’t bother with that nonsense here. These seven people aren’t worth chronicling because their stories are both meaningless, and have been illegitimately used by a partisan judge as a means to attack Trump.

Firstly, the judge is clearly ignorant of technology. The fact is none of these people were permanently blocked from seeing Trump’s tweets. Yes, the president blocked them, but all they have to do is log out of their Twitter account and they will be able to see everything Trump posts.

You see, Twitter blocking only works when someone who is blocked is logged in. But if the account people who are blocked want to view is set to public viewing, they can still see the posts if they log out of their own account.

Twitter users can block all but a chosen set of people if they set their account to one of the protected settings so only approved people can see it. Then everyone, even people not logged in, are blocked unless that person has approved their account for membership.


So, this liberal judge made a ruling on something that she doesn’t even know how it works.

But, even so, this case was not ruled on real constitutional grounds because blocking someone on Twitter who can still see the tweets anyway is not a violation of anyone’s First Amendment rights!

But now we have this i***tic ruling rolling out like waves of crap from New York as public figures are suddenly running scared. Hence, for instance, this May 24 article in the Sun Sentinel:

Among those possibly at risk is the Broward schools’ leadership, which has blocked some people. But the ruling Wednesday has not fazed the organization.

Broward Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie has no plans to unblock those who have been shut out from engaging his Twitter feed, a school spokeswoman said Thursday.

“Superintendent Runcie is not required but chooses to use social media in order to share information or sometimes provide an uplifting thought,” spokeswoman Tracy Clark wrote in an email to the South Florida Sun Sentinel. “Those individuals seeking to use Mr. Runcie’s social media channel for spreading profanity, hostile or h**e speech or false information have been and will continue to be blocked.”


But the activist who sued in the first place proclaimed his ill-gotten judicial victory as a “notice” to politicians who sue Twitter:

“This ruling should put them on notice, and if they censor critics from social media accounts used for official purposes, they run the risk that someone will sue them and win,” he said of public officials.

Sorry, but no one is being “censored.”

Indeed, the blocked Twitter users are not having any rights to free speech censored. After all, blocked Twitter users can use the own Twitter account to rail about Trump or any other politician all they want. They can also use Facebook, Google Plus, email, or they can start a blog. They can also stand on a soapbox on the corner and rail all they want.


In t***h, the only way there would be any unconstitutional censoring is if government swoops in and denies citizens from being able to use Twitter at all. If Trump used his powers as president to cancel a citizen’s ability to use Twitter. Or, perhaps if Trump shut Twitter itself down. That would also be an unconstitutional abuse of power.

But just having an American citizen blocked from seeing one person’s tweets — even if that person is a president — is not a violation of anyone’s rights.

Especially since those people can still see those tweets by just signing out of Twitter and looking anyway.

In the end, all we really have here is a left-wing, activist judge looking for a way to attack President Donald Trump.

Trump will reverse this buffoonery as well!