Victory in Europe

th (12).jpg

The Presidents Poland/G20 trip is over and as usual we have two different reactions. Conservatives and nationalists like me are pleased with what he has accomplished and liberals proclaim it to be the death of civilization as usual. There is a disconnect here and it lies on what people consider to be in the interests of America. Democrats are unable to process the implications of the trip properly because they consider to be what is good for Europe to be synonymous to what is good for America. This is not a surprise at this point in time Democrats would much rather see a successful Europe rather than a successful America. In reality Europe has been angling to set up a power bloc separate from the United States and have been since they set up the European Union.

I will break down what happened this weekend and how they affected each country. Due to the nature of international politics some events may impact more than one country or group of countries so I may list one event in multiple sections.

Poland

Poland and by extension the Visegrad group emerge as the biggest winners for this trip. Due to their position they are stuck between the rock of Russia and the hard place of the EU leadership in Germany and Brussels. Germany is forcing them to take more refugees in an effort to solve its self-inflicted refugee crisis and Russia is bleeding their economies dry with energy exports and of course the ever-present military threat.

President Trump has offered to sell Poland missile defense technology to guard against Russian aggression and more importantly has said that he would be willing to sell energy, most likely in the form of natural gas, to Poland and the other Eastern European countries. Of course critics will say that President Trump has no control over where private companies sell gas without thinking that the US can always exert soft pressure on these companies or buy and resell the natural gas themselves.

On the European front President Trumps support for their immigration policies gives them a leader to rally around and gives them more resolve to stand against Germany and the leaders of the EU. It gives them a major ally to invoke in negotiations with the rest of the EU as well.

The United States gains a minority faction in the EU which will follow its lead. The US gains leverage against Russia by becoming competition in the energy market of these countries. All in all the US gains vassal states and gains leverage against the EU and Russia.

Russia

It is a testament to the effectiveness of our press and political class that the most important development regarding Russia is not discussed. I have written before that Trump presents the most danger to Russia out of anyone because he threatens them economically not just with a military. Russia is held up by its energy sector. Oil and natural gas. With America pushing for energy independence and worse for Russia actually exporting energy it creates downward pressure on the price. In these Eastern European countries the US will actually be in direct competition with Russia enabling Trump to cause a glut in the price if Russia steps out of line. People forget that the Soviet Union was brought down due to its economy not because of a military conflict.

To give the Russians a token of our goodwill despite our renewed support for the Eastern European countries we have also entered into a ceasefire agreement with them regarding Syria. In practical terms continuing conflict in Syria has very little effect on the US. We are an ocean away and will take in very few refugees in any case. Russia does not care too much as well since their side is winning anyway. Both Putin and Trump stand to gain some prestige from a ceasefire. Maybe even a Nobel Peace Prize for whatever that is worth nowadays.

This trip showed Russia that we have the upper hand and can ruin their economy at any time. I would list more NATO spending as well but that seems like a minor point compared to everything else that has been achieved.

The EU

The EU has two major problems. First you have the brexit effect with some nations electing anti-Eu parties to head their government and second and most pressing they have their self inflicted refugee crisis. It can be compared to an extinction level event for the EU. With Trump stiffening the resolve of the Visegrad group and taking them under his wing that solution is no longer available. In any case it would only have been a temporary solution.

Ask yourself one thing. If the war in Syria ended tomorrow who would benefit the most. The EU, the US, or Russia? The US and Russia are too far away to feel any real effects from Syria. With the exception of the actual Syrians on the ground no one is praying more for a successful ceasefire than Merkel.

A successful ceasefire in Syria would remove the excuse for all the economic migrants who are heading to Germany. It would allow Germany and other European nations to return the refugees to their homelands, something their electorate will not allow under current circumstances. It would remove a point of friction between the EU leadership and the Visegrad nations. It would also prevent Germany friction between Greece and Germany as Greece became the front line of the refugee crisis after being put under austerity by Germany and the EU leadership.

Who does the ceasefire now rely on? The US. If the EU behaves maybe the ceasefire will hold. If it doesn’t maybe the ceasefire falls apart and we have more refugees.

To summarize. In this trip the US has gained enough leverage to corner both the EU and Russia. We have also gained a new set of vassal states in the Visegrad Group to use against the EU.  Not bad for a weeks worth of work.

 

 

 

4th of July: The Hypocrisy of Hate

th (9).jpg

Another year and another celebration of Independence day. My peeve about this day is that it is the day liberals come out of the woodwork to complain about all the “terrible” things America has done in the past. I put the word terrible in quotation marks because it is precisely these actions which allow Americans to enjoy the standard of living they do now.

Liberals hold America to an impossible standard. Particularly when you consider the actions of other countries in that time period. If you were to actually follow the rules prescribed by those who complain about the actions of America in the past the country would have never become anything more than a minor power and would have most likely failed completely. For this article I will take a look at the two major complaints that normally come up. That of slavery and the various wars of aggression the US has engaged in.

Wars

When the subject of wars come up the first thing that gets brought up is the American Indian war and the Mexican American war. This is the best place to see the impact of these policies liberals condemn America for as the America we know today would literally not exist without them. The first thing we need to realize is that the Indian nations, Mexico, and the early form of America made up of the initial colonies were distinct countries. Each with their own diplomacy, interests, economy, and people. The Indians and Mexicans were not Americans. The Indians just happened to live in the same continent.

Without these wars of expansion America would have never extended beyond the original colonies. The rest of the continent would not have remained vacant. A combination of Mexican, Indian, or Canadian interests would have taken over. Instead of one great nation spanning from sea to shining sea we would have 3 to 4 nations of equal strength throughout the continent. When we look at the history of Europe and Africa I can think of no greater evil to inflict on North America than this. The entire reason the continent has been stable and escaped the damage of the world wars is because of the relative strength of the US as compared to its neighbors.

Slavery

What would this discussion be without slavery? Everyone is against it and acknowledges how horrible it was. The truth is America would not have the economic power it now does if we did not go through a period of slavery. At the end of the Revolutionary War the US was bankrupt. It had no money to pay its soldiers and most of its economy consisted of subsistence farming. The government even had to pay some soldiers with land grants because it had no money.

Without slavery there would be no cotton or other cash crops. Other countries in this time period used slave labor or some form of its equivalent with their colonies so US agricultural products would not have been competitive in other markets. Without this capital the US would have a difficult time setting up other industries. In fact it would be very likely that the country would never have developed out of subsistence farming and would have been the equivalent of yet another third world country.

Think of all the good America has done for the world. Take a look at World War 1 and World War 2 for example. Without American intervention how much longer would those have lasted? Would the allies even have won? An America that did not go thru a period of slavery and expansionism would not have had the men or materiel to send over. The most likely outcome is that it would have had its own fight with the other nations in the continent.

America is America warts and all. If you are a liberal and want an America that can take the lead in Climate Change, rescuing refugees, forcing people to acknowledge there are 30 million genders, or whatever other cause you are fighting for then it would have to be an America that went thru slavery, imperialism, and all other things that you hate. The moralist America that you preach, that never existed, would never have made it out of infancy.

 

On Leadership: Trump and Obama

th (5).jpg

There has been a lot of comparisons on the leadership capabilities of President Trump and Obama. Before the presidency it was hard to draw a comparison between the two as they are from different worlds. I waited for a while before commenting on the subject as I was waiting for a good area to draw some examples from. The middle east presents a good opportunity for this as both parties were able to implement their strategies relatively free from partisan interference.

Active and Passive

One of the hallmarks of leadership is that they would like the initiative to remain with their team. This allows them to control the situation and gives them the opportunity to act for their benefit.

Obama is actually terrible in this regard. His main solution to the problems of the middle east is the Iran deal. It essentially gave Iran a huge amount of money and allowed them to resume their nuclear tests in exchange for regular inspections. In addition to the nuclear issue it was supposed to build better relations with Iran and normalize their standing with the international community. This deal gave all the initiative to Iran as all the benefits, the cash and recognition, was given to them up front. It is them dependent upon their goodwill to continue the terms of the agreement in the future.

Trump is the polar opposite. He gave the initiative to our allies in the region. Saudi Arabia and our other allies were given free reign to deal with the threat of Iran in the region with our support. All barriers were removed to give them more options to deal with the threat. Whatever happens in the region will depend on the US and its allies as opposed to Iran.

Permanent and Temporary

A leader would seek for permanent solutions to problems instead of temporary band aids.

In this regard Obama fails as well. The Iran deal empowered Iran at the cost of our allies in the middle east. There is a delicate balance of power in the middle east which have endeavored to stack in favor of our allies. Moving this balance the other way causes more problems in the future as both sides fight longer. In effect the Iran deal is a tribute to keep Iran quiet until the end of Obama’s term requiring his successor to deal with it.

The solution proposed by President Trump has the potential to solve the problem for good. By giving the Saudis carte blanche to deal with the shia muslims they have the potential of breaking the power of Iran for good. We already see initial moves in this game with the diplomatic isolation of Qatar. For all intents and purposes Qatar is the lifeline of Iran and the most friendly Sunni state to it as it shares the worlds largest natural gas field. Forcing Qatar to remove this cooperation would cripple Iran’s economy.

Good leaders work to get things done themselves and thru their allies and solve problems permanently. Trump is a good leader. Obama is not.

 

Send the Paris Deal to the Senate

ows_145022588857992.jpg

As a nationalist I fully support the decision of President Trump to pull out of the Paris deal. My objection is not based on the environment but rather on the fact that the restrictions on the US are much harsher than the restrictions on China, India, and our other competitors despite these countries producing just as much if not more pollution than the US. If democrats and other environmentalists wanted nationalist support for something like this they would simply have to make sure that our competitors are hit harder than we are and we would gladly take the comparative advantage.

President Trump has the opportunity to exit the agreement the proper way and I fear he will miss it. The worst way President Trump can exit the treaty is the same way Obama entered it: By executive action. When this treaty was offered to the countries of the world it was ratified by their respective legislatures. It was only the US, with the dictatorships of the world, who entered to it soley on the will of one man, Barrack Obama. Instead of saying that the US will pull out of the agreement President Trump should do what should have been done in the past and send it to the senate. This creates precedent for things like this to be ratified by the senate in the future.

Article 28

There is also a hidden provision in the Paris agreement that we need to pay attention to. Article 28 section 1 says that a nation can only withdraw from the agreement three years after the agreement was entered into. With this provision we are stuck in the agreement for 3 years. If the decision gets sent to the senate and they fail to ratify then we would never have entered into the treaty in the first place and can leave it as soon as possible.

#Imwithher

vrresfx2zhyx.jpg

The first round is over and the results are in. It will be a contest between Macron and Marine Le Pen and I would like to say that #imwithher. If you have any liberal friends here or in France feel free to say that they are a racist sexist bigot if they are voting for the straight white male Macron. After all we want to break the glass ceiling for all women.

Marine Le Pen

Let us be clear about one thing Le Pen represents change in this election. From economics, to social policy, and even culture itself. Ultimately the election is about changing the course of the country. Le Pen represents a shift in the direction of the ship. From east to west or north to south while Macron at best represents a change of 1 or 2 degrees either way. If you are happy with Hollande and the work he has done you should definitely vote for Macron. If you are not happy with his work then I encourage you to vote for Le Pen.

Macron and the opponents of Le Pen do not want you to think about that. They cannot engage Le Pen on ideas as it will be obvious they stand for nothing more than the status quo so they engage in the old tactic of calling her a Nazi. At this point I would like to issue a challenge to all my readers. Look up articles from the elections or Reagan, Bush daddy, Dole, Bush 2, Mccain, Romney, and Trump. Every single one of them has been called a nazi during their election. Of course after they were no longer politically relevant they were no longer nazis and the left was fine with them.

Chances are you voted for someone else in the first round after all most people voted for someone other than Macron or Le pen, after all most people did. Think about why you made that vote. Did you do it because you were happy at the way things are? Or did you do so because you were not happy with the situation in the country and wanted to change it? Take a look a chance with Le Pen. If it does not work out you can always go back to status quo later.

Macron

Due to the control of the media by the elites who favor Macron he has somehow been able to market himself as the agent of change in this election.  Nothing could be further from the truth. He was a socialist for the longest time, the same party as Hollande. He was in the Hollande administration himself before he resigned to take part in the election.

The only reason that Macron left the socialist party is that he was not going to get the nod to be the candidate for the next election and it was becoming impossible to win as the socialist candidate. I recall Hollande receiving a 4% approval rating at one point in time. It is like a hand off between Obama and Clinton. They may differ on some minor points but they will largely continue each others policies.

Hollande is Macron and Macron is Hollande. Why continue policies that will got you 4% approval? Why continue something that already failed France? There is only one answer.

Vive Le Pen Vive Le Resistance Vive Le France

Foreign Policy: The Caesarean Doctrine

prince-barron-trump-joins-god-emperor-trump-knight-pence-and-18674791.png

Over the past few weeks the foreign policy doctrine of President Trump has become clearer and clearer. It looks like it is based on the model of ancient Rome.

The Roman Citizen

When Caesar was running for consul he said ” Once elected I will work towards the day when a Roman Citizen can go to any land and declare that he is a Roman Citizen and expect good treatment, for they will know he has the might of Rome behind him”. Trump is following this doctrine.

A week ago a green beret was killed in Achin district in Afghanistan. A week later President Trump drops the mother of all bombs to them. Of course there are other benefits to dropping this bomb but the message is clear. If an American citizen dies vengeance and it will be vastly disproportionate to the amount of damage suffered. The retaliation may not always be military but it will always be there.

Leading by Example

Rome has always been very good in leading by example. That is they made an example of some nations for others to follow. When Carthage challenged Rome they destroyed their city and sowed it with salt so nothing would ever grow there again.  When Spartacus led his rebellion Rome crucified all of them as a warning to future rebellions. Rome made an example of its benevolence as well. Caesar turned back the hordes of Helveti encroaching on Aedui lands and to be an ally of Rome meant that the empire would support you in war.

Did we really need to drop 59 tomahawks in Syria? Surely 20 would have sufficed. Did we need to drop a bomb that is as close to a nuke as we can get in Afganistan? Surely a bunch of regular bombs would have achieved the same result. The answer is of course yes. The missile strikes serve as an example to North Korea, China, Russia and our other adversaries. Is it necessary to threaten to ruin the Mexican economy? Yes because other nations need to learn that there are consequences when they take advantage of our good graces.

Rome First

Roman foreign policy always put Roman interests first. Allies were constantly evaluated at how useful and compliant they were to empire. Allies who were not were replaced by those who are. Even age old enemies like the Persians or the Germanic tribes were given help when greater threats appeared.

Our President is using these principles today. China, Russia, and even our old allies in Europe have to constantly prove themselves as worthy of our support. This allows us to derive the maximum benefit for our support.

Heirs of Rome

For better or for worse America has inherited the mantle of Rome as the Empire of the West. We can hardly do worse than emulating the foreign policy of an empire that has lasted a thousand years.

4D Chess: The Syrian Strike was Necessary

20170130_iran1_0.jpg

The Trumposphere is alive with denunciations from his closest supporters. Milo, Ann, Watson, and even Alex Jones are all up in arms about the missile strike into Syria. They are all wrong.

If you want the promise of jobs fulfilled, more equitable trade terms with China, and a handle on North Korea then this strike was necessary.

China not Syria

In my previous piece “Why Russia?” I explained that in the mind of President Trump the primary concern is economic. Everything else comes after that. The primary target of this strike was China not Syria. Syria is just a convenient excuse to launch missiles. Think about the timing of the event. It could have happened a couple of days later or a couple of days earlier and the reaction of Syria, Russia, Democrats, and Republicans would have been largely the same. Yet it happened right before President Trump was due to meet with President Xi of China to discuss trade and the North Korean situation. Hours before that meeting he was treated to a live show of US missiles being launched for the first time in a long time.  Just to put a sense of perspective the US used around 120 tomahawk missiles in Libya according to Forbes.

Shows of force like this are important. Syria does not exist in a vacuum. Since the red line proclamation of President Obama China has viewed the US as a paper tiger. In their mind we have all the military power in the world but are unable to muster the necessary political will to use it. This leads to a more belligerent trade policy from them, a more aggressive stance in the southeast china sea, and more aggressive stances from their satellite nations like North Korea. In this case the target was less important than the fact that force was used.

Equally important is the fact that this kills the Russia narrative of the Democrats. Russia has a strong army and a good geopolitical position vis a vis China which makes them a necessary ally in dealing with them in the future. With their narrative the democrats were making it difficult to exert the proper pressure on China using Russia.

Not an Escalation

The strike destroyed one airbase and killed around 6 people. That is not out of the ordinary in the middle east. If you were to have a missile strike New York and kill 6 people it would be a national scandal. If the same thing happens in the Middle East it would be just another Tuesday. Little Shalifa who has been sent by her parents to suicide bomb a building would have killed more people when she claimed her 99 virgin barbie dolls with the great pedophile in the sky.

When we look at the middle east we have to remember to judge things by their standards. For something to be an escalation in that savage part of the world it would have to be a lot more than one airstrike that kills 6 random people.

To the Trumposphere

Everyone wants Trump to succeed. We want those jobs back, we want better terms with China, and we want other countries to live up to their obligations to us. How is Trump supposed to accomplish that if other countries do not believe that we are willing to use our military at some point?

At the end of the day our primary argument for everything that Trump is trying to accomplish is that we are more important to you than you are to us. If Mexico does not give way we would have an easier time finding a market for our exports than they would for theirs. If China or North Korea does not give way then we are more powerful than them and could take what we needed or move them out of the way.

If you are like Ann Coulter, Milo, or the others who want Trump to succeed then asking him to tie one hand behind his back is counterproductive. In fact your insistence on it may guarantee failure. At the end of the day Trump has 4 years to prove himself and his promises. We have to give him the freedom to employ the different negotiation techniques that he needs. Let us try and refrain from acting like democrats and demanding that Trump be deposed at the drop of a hat.

Why Russia?

trumptoon011.jpg

Since the campaign President Trump has been going out of his way to repair relations with Russia. He has faced intense criticism from both Republicans and Democrats who prefer that we maintain an adversarial relationship with this country. Russia as a country presents several problems as they have their own national interests that they are trying to pursue which is sometimes at odds with ours. It is a very fair question to ask Why Russia? Why should we bother pursuing warmer relations with this country?

By itself Russia is not important. Taken on their own there is not much value in forming better relations with them. The value of Russia lies not with them but with their proximity and historical relationship with another country, China.

Worldview

To understand the importance of Russia you first have to understand how the President looks at the world. Trump looks at the world thru the lens of the economy. That is his primary consideration. Military, diplomacy, human rights, climate, and everything else you can think of is only a distant second. From this standpoint the primary competitor of the US is China. It is the only country worldwide that is capable of overtaking the country in global dominance. By this standard Russia, with an economy the size of Italy, is barely a secondary power. In fact the military of Russia would be a burden to them in this case as they would not be able to afford it long term.

This worldview might be different from other people but it is not wrong. In a micro sense we see richer people being afforded better interest rates than poorer ones. We also see that when they default on their obligations the banks are more willing to work with the richer customers while taking the collateral of poorer ones. Trump has taken advantage of this himself. You would be foolish to think he is the only one to have done so. This also holds true in a macro sense. Debts of countries with weak economies like Greece do not get renegotiated and its people are forced into austerity while everything is done to make sure that countries with stronger economies are not inconvenienced by paying their debt.

In this world view everything flows from a stronger economy. Economy leads to military success as you are able to afford a bigger army and pay to keep it deployed longer and in more areas. Economy leads to diplomatic success as you have more leverage in dealings with other countries. Economy even leads to domestic tranquility as the populace is more content.

Military

Every simulation done by the Chinese general staff on a potential conflict with the US assumes that Russia is a friendly nation or at worse a neutral one. A Russia that has a chance to be friendly to the US in a conflict with China is the worst nightmare for the Chinese. First off you have the massive border between Russia and China. There is just no real way to defend a border of that size while still keeping your coasts adequately protected. Second you have the type of military the US has and the type Russia has. At the end of the day the US is and always will be a naval power. Most of our force projection involves the navy and our carriers. Russia on the other hand is a land power. They also have the willpower to sustain casualties that the US cannot.

Trade

At first glance you would not see any great importance of Russia to China in trade. While it is true that the first priority of China in trade is the southeast region of Asia, this area is also the most easily disrupted if conflict were to arise with the US. The more China relies on this region for its wealth the more power it gives the US over it.

China knows that its navy will never equal that of the US. It is just too far behind and the US improves its navy all the time. This means that the Southeast China sea and Southeast Asia will always be at risk. Due to this the Chinese are spending trillions of dollars developing a land trade route modeled along the lines of the Silk Road used in the middle ages.

The silk road is not one straight line but rather a spiderweb of land based trade routes stretching from China all the way to Europe. These routes have to pass thru one of two major regions. The Middle East or Russia. The Middle East is the Middle East, there is no reasonable expectation for it to be a stable region anytime in the future. At any point in time any of its countries can enter a state of war. In any case the US already has significant allies in the region with Israel and Saudi Arabia. A Russia friendly to the US would mean that even these routes can be cut off.

Diplomacy

The Chinese have been trying to set up an alternative world order without the US. From Brics, to its own version of the TPP, to various bilateral relations with countries around the world. In most of these endeavors Russia is its biggest partner and helps provide stability and credibility to these alternative institutions.

A Russia that is friendly to the US would mean that one of the primary members of this new world order would be able to make decisions that is favorable to the US.

Leverage 

Trump needs Russia in order to contain the Chinese and make it harder for them to compete with the US. China has a history spanning thousands of years. The current communist government does not see themselves as a New China but rather a continuation of the Old Chinese dynasties. Even Rome the longest civilization the west has had can only claim a history of 1000 years.

This gives the Chinese a mindset that favors the long term rather than the short and favors certainty above all else. The more uncertain they are over their alliance with Russia and all the plans coming from it the more they will be willing to give up to the US in the negotiating table.

If Trump is a Russian Puppet then why…..

download (5).jpg

Here is a series of questions that liberals have never been able to answer about their Russian conspiracy theories.

Why is Trump pushing oil and natural gas? 

This is actually the biggest one. Russia relies on oil and natural gas for its economy. In fact it would not be an understatement to say that this is the biggest weakness of Russia. Any major reduction in price would be enough to trigger an economic downturn in Russia. If Trump were a Russian puppet why would he increase production of oil and natural gas by the US? Economics would say that the more supply in the market the lower the price gets. Would it not be more beneficial for Russia if the US were to decrease production increasing the price of oil and gas?

Why is Trump speaking out against refugees in Europe  ? 

The biggest event to destabilize Europe in recent memory was not the election of Trump, Farage and brexit, or even the Grecian debt crisis. It was Merkel inviting millions of savages from the middle east to settle in Europe. This completely overwhelmed border countries who were not in great shape to begin with and even caused a backlash of independence movements across the continent demanding to withdraw from the EU culminating in the UK actually voting to leave. For single handedly inflicting the greatest crisis the EU faced upon itself Merkel was lauded by the liberal world order. If Trump wanted to help Putin by destroying the EU would it not be simpler for Trump to let the situation continue by praising Merkel? After all the refugee crisis has made the EU so weak that it has to bow to the demands or face them releasing their refugee hordes. Instead Trump tells Europe they are hurting themselves by welcoming so many Muslims.

Why is Trump insisting that NATO countries increase defense spending?

Forget about the border countries. Most of them like Estonia are already hitting the target and the rest are too small to matter. In any case their spending is trending up. The real military power in continental Europe would lie within Germany and France. They have the economy necessary to equip a force that can stand up to the Russians and more importantly their spending for defence is trending down. If Trump was a Russian puppet would it not be easier to let the European armies stagnate so the Russians can march into Berlin again?

Reckless Robart

2011-02_cartoon.jpg

By now everyone will have heard about the ruling of Judge Robart. Leaving aside the fact that he made a nationwide ban on an issue raised by two states and the text of the relevant immigration law which gives plenary power to the President over immigration law, I find his decision legally problematic on three grounds. Not only is it the wrong decision here but the precedent it sets can be used by other judges, whether on the right or the left, in the future.

Intent

At your first year of law school one of the very first subjects you will discuss is something called statutory construction. In essence it is how to interpret laws and executive orders made by the executive and legislative. To simplify things for everyone, you first limit your view to the statute itself. If there are any ambiguities you then try to divine legislative intent, which the courts normally do by looking at the transcript of the deliberations. In rare situations when you still cannot get the intent by these methods then you go to other factors that may help you divine intent.

In this case the muslim ban was not borne out by the text of the order as the word muslim does not appear there. In any case the travel ban was so limited in scope that most Muslim countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, or even Kuwait in the same region are not even affected by it. The judge did not even bother looking for any deliberations nor did he give any credence to the stated intent of the administration which was to ban travel from the most unstable countries in the region.

Judge Robart immediately went to statements made by President Trump during the campaign trail to derive legislative intent. What is worse he even gave credence to statements by former Mayor Giuliani, a well known Trump ally, but one that is not part of the administration for corroboration.

Think about the implications of this. Any president at any time can have his public statements, even before he became the president, taken and used to provide intent for a certain executive order to have that blocked. What is worse is even his allies can have their statements taken as legislative intent for the president. By the standard Robart is using any comments someone like President Obama even while he was a senator could be used to block his orders. Any comments by Soros, Emmanuel, or any other ally could be used to block executive.orders. By his standard you can block any thing you want.

Effectivity 

In the courtroom the government argued that the travel ban protects the country from terrorists. Robart said he found no support for these claims. Instead of judging based on constitutionality Robart instead judged based on how effective the ban was. I believe this is something he has no right to do.

Generally there are two sources where people draw their decision making legitimacy from. Electability or expertise. Congressmen, Senators, and the President make laws and executive orders that they believe is effective and are believed to have the right to do so because they have been elected by the people. The second one is expertise. The various heads of the government agencies and the people working under them are assumed to have expertise on the subject as they were appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.

Judge Robart has neither of these, which is why he was asked to adjudicate based on the constitutionality of the issue and nothing else. There is no limits to their power once the judiciary can strike things down based on effectivity. Do you have a judge that does not like Obamacare? Well he can find that they are not effective in reforming healthcare and strike it down. Do you have a judge that does not like social security? Well he can find that it is not effective at providing a social net and strike it down.

Minorities

One of the questions of the case was whether or not you could give priorities to religious minorities which were persecuted. The President would normally have the power to do this given that he has wide plenary powers given to him by the legislative to tailor immigration to national interest.

Understand the implications of this. If the Germans decided to start gassing their jews again you would not be able to prioritize them for the refugee program. Given that religions are banned , the same argument can also be applied to other divisions such as nationalities or race. If the South Africans decided to massacre their white population you could not give them special treatment. If the Chinese did the same to Tibet you could not either. In fact arguing in this same line of thought it is arguable that you could not even give Syrians special treatment as that would discriminate against everyone else.

I am actually stunned at these decisions and the massive judicial overreach that they represent. I do not see anyway they can hold but if they do then the precedent they cause will change our legal system forever.