A Very Judicial Coup

We’ve now entered the Alice in Wonderland phase of America — specifically its judiciary arm.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed down its decision concerning the Trump “Travel Ban.” Surprise! It affirmed the remarkably daft and erroneous lower court decision concluding that Pres. Trump did not have the authority to restrict immigration — especially immigration from places that produce dangerous people.

The statute in question is one of the more straightforward statutes out there. Not written in typical double-negative bureaucratese, it’s actually understandable to a human being (i.e. not a lawyer). Here’s the important bit.

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Pretty clearly the president can make most any decision he wants concerning immigration. If he does something squirrely, he can answer to Congress or the people.

However, the Ninth, according to this summary from Law Newz, decided that the president did not have exclusive domain over immigration. In fact, the court seems to have decided to insert itself immigration policy by dismissing the president’s reasons because, well, the court doesn’t approve of restricting immigration.

Well, glad that’s settled.

Actually, you would be hard-pressed to find a decision that was more perfectly wrong than this one. Almost every reason the court uses is spectacularly wrong and misunderstands the law and the Constitution.

For instance, the court decided that the president doesn’t have the power to proclaim the details of policy because he was discriminating against select people.

Wow, imagine that, a law that discriminates.

Oh, wait, that’s what laws do. They discriminate. Murder laws discriminate against murderers — crimping their style, so to say. Theft laws discriminate against thieves. Speed limits discriminate against speeders, etc. And immigration laws in the past discriminated against specific countries such as Eastern Bloc countries or limited the amount of immigrants from countries.

Funny how those laws work…

The court complained that the “travel ban” was breaking up families — declaring a new right that anyone related to an American may enter the country at will.

Now, a federal court ruled that the president doesn’t have the power that a statute clearly delegates to him. Well, then what’s the point of a president if courts can simply insert themselves into policy whenever they wish?

Maybe they think they should be in charge — unelected courts assuming a power they do not have in the Constitution. Judges that cannot be easily removed. Sitting in judgment of Congressionally passed laws, presidential Constitutional duties. No longer satisfied to be blindfolded and follow the law unequivocally, they now offer their thumbs up or thumbs down, like the Roman emperors of old; or maybe the Red Queen.The law means what she says it means.

It is time that these arrogant robed tyrants have their wings clipped. As the Virginia flag says, “Sic Semper Tyrannis.”

A Big Lie

While out running errands on Saturday I popped into the barbershop. The barber keeps the TVs on Fox News. Not bad, so much better than CNN, but I’d have preferred the MLB Network or NHL Network. Fox can be annoying too.

I tried not to pay any attention but one story caught my attention. There was some rally for “Immigrant Rights” in Hollywood or featuring Hollywood celebrities.

The babbling actors and actresses kept pretending that Pres. Trump had simply banned foreigners and immigrants. Mass deportations and house-to-house searches were about to happen (applause and boos).

I wondered as I listened, why do they so grossly mischaracterize what Trump is doing? Do they not know what he is doing?

That’s a possibility considering the way the lamestream media misreports all things Trump. They probably also rely on their friends and other fellow libs in the hermetically-sealed Media-Entertainment Complex bubble. Actors and actresses are generally not too bright but often want to be thought highly of by appearing studious and thoughtful.

And there is the possibility that they know they are lying but do it anyway — to be popular and signal their virtue. And maybe they want to have anyone, from anywhere, be allowed to come to the United States whenever they wish. It would be nice if they just honestly admitted that, rather than accusing Trump of calumny.

It gets frustrating watching reporters, politicians, activist groups and celebrities try to dupe the public by conflating illegal aliens with standard immigrants — who are not threatened by Trump’s orders.

If only we had a group of people who would transmit the actual facts to the general public. That’s such a great idea. I wonder if I can copyright that????

Terrorists Buy iPhones Too

I was recently reading an article in the Wall Street Journal. It was one of those typical “Tech Execs Criticize Trump Travel Ban” pieces that’s all the rage for the sophisticates who are suddenly concerned about business these days.

I was struck by the segment on Apple’s Tim Cook. Cook is probably the second smartest guy to run Apple (after Steve Jobs). It quoted Cook characterizing the ban, or rather mischaracterizing as is the wont of critics and the press.

He lamented how this would affect Apple recruitment for talent and how it was just awful that we consigned so many people to doom. He especially worried about families unable to simply come to America.

I thought to myself — Cook is bound to know what the ban is specifically about so he’s purposefully mischaracterizing it as an all out ban against immigration in general.

It is sad that Cook deceptively implies that this small number of refugees contains many potential Apple employees. Unless Apple has gone into the home-made bomb business, mid-level hacking business or simple low-level mercenary business then the number of potential employees is limited within this group. There just aren’t a whole lot of software engineers or politically correct marketing boffins coming out of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia…

One of Cook’s problems is that he sees these immigrants in question mistakenly. He sees them as no different from the urbane, worldly, almost agnostic Middle Easterners he went to school with, has dinner with at swanky international hotels, meets with in Dubai, London, Paris, New York, speaks to at conferences like Davos and sees on boards of businesses everywhere.

Does he not know that most of these “refugees” and immigrants from the countries in question are young males of military age? They aren’t coming to the U.S. for midnight basketball or to work at Apple (or some other tech firm). Looking at how they behaved in Europe it would seem clear that they wish to not assimilate but rather create their own little rotten boroughs. I’m sure our Democrats are all for this since they’d make an alliance with these indigestible potatoes.

The number of cute and photogenic families is small and most now seem to have agents peddling their likenesses to the highest bidder.

One also has to wonder whether the openly homosexual Cook even understands what the more dedicated Islamists that he wants to import do to people such as he. People like him go nuclear instantly when a Christian opens their mouth to utter some meek platitude. What are they going to do in the face of a deep-believing hardcore Muslim that feels empowered to bend people to his will. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, Mr. Cook.

Much of Cook’s lament seems to gloss over these prospective reality problems. He refuses to acknowledge that there could be a problem at all. Other than with the bigots in America, that is. They are the real problem in his eyes.

No, Cook, seems to see this all as a stumbling block to more Apple business. If everyone just had an iPhone and an iPad they could communicate so much better (no doubt terrorists would love to have some iPhones and iPads, the better to plot and plan).

Then there would be no problem at all as everyone holds hands in an Apple-ized version of the famous Coca-Cola commercial. (I can’t believe Apple hasn’t ‘rebooted’ this commercial for their own cynical, craven use!)

What Part of “Illegal” Do They Not Understand?

The whole to-do over Pres. Trump’s order to curtail immigration from seven countries, six of them in chaos and one (Iran) a hostile enemy, has brought the immigration debate to a head.

One can argue whether the Trump “ban” will be effective — I think it would be more effective targeting those who transited through or visited those countries since they are terrorist havens rather than simply being born there.

That’s what we are supposed to do, discuss these things.

Instead we are treated to yet another liberal spazz attack. Yeah, that’s what we are seeing, liberals seem to be permanently stuck with the maturity level of a junior high spazz.

Liberals aren’t interested in debate because they might lose. They aren’t interested in a discussion or a conversation because they simply want to tell you what to do. They do not want give and take, other than they give it and you bend over and take it.

So we get this meltdown at airports and claims of international “chaos.” We’re told that so many companies are against this because it prevents them from getting recruits for jobs.

Now tell me, how many of these companies, many of them high tech, are actually getting recruits from say, Somalia? Libya? Syria? Iran? Yemen? Sudan? Iraq? I’d wager that number would be close to zero.

Several of those countries don’t even have running water, much less a tech industry. So what’s the fuss?

We have actual politicians, people supposedly familiar with something called “The Law,” pretending that Trump’s executive order is somehow out of the norm.

There was a time, within my lifetime, when people immigrating to the United States had to have sponsors. During that time people had to apply to come over. Some people actually got rejected because they were deemed undesirable. And taking people from hostile countries was limited to individual, special cases like Refuseniks — people who loved America, not hated it.

And we’re getting the tearful tales of “refugees” being prevented from just moving to the United States at their convenience. As if anyone, anywhere can decide just to come to the U.S. if their country goes down the crapper, and there’s nothing we can do about it.

So, in the eyes of these politicians, activists and would-be immigrants, a country doesn’t have the right to police its borders? That is some kind of insane concept never-before seen anywhere before?

That’s what the libtards want you to believe. Do you get the feeling we are being lied to by these liberals and their media auxiliaries?

The fact is that there are a number of immigration limitation statutes on the books. The Trump administration enforcement and institution of restrictions is not unusual in the history of this country. It’s only the slackness of immigration law enforcement and national generosity (not mutually exclusive) of the last couple of decades which has created an atmosphere of “open borders.”

Which leads me to the bizarre world of “illegal” immigration. The argument has gotten to the point where those illegally in this country have supporters who insist that the people who point out that the illegals are illegal are somehow wrong.

That these illegals are special, the truly law-abiding, while those pointing out their illegalness are the ones that are in the wrong.

The supporters often baldly insist that the “illegals” have done nothing wrong, preferring the euphemism “undocumented.”

Hey, bank robbery is an “undocumented” withdrawal… right?

The supporters, often in the form of nonprofit, tax-exempt groups, constantly invoke “families,” as if involving one’s family in a crime mitigates that crime.

Then there is a whole legal apparatus twisting laws so that people who are not citizens are allowed access to the benefits of citizenry, yet without any of the obligations and responsibilities. It’s actually kind of a sweet deal now that you think about it.

Just an example — drivers licenses for illegal aliens. People actually rationalize this bit of sophistry. Illegals can go to a DMV and get a drivers license. DMV people will turn in regular wanted criminals but illegals, they coddle and try to sign them up for other goodies, like voting. The DMV, as an arm of a state or county government, is obligated to aid in law enforcement but in our upside down world they feel free to ignore that particular law. But they’ll nail you to the wall if you are behind on child support or student loans or parking tickets…

The left’s desperation has bred this upside-down world — the illegal becomes the legal; those wanting enforcement of the law are deemed as the unlawful. Their aggressive vindictiveness is the product of their arrogance mixed with the weakness of their argument. The weaker the argument the more angry and violent they become.

When laws can no longer be carried out in their letter, they are lost.

When people are this delusional, it becomes impossible to have a rational discussion with them. They are lost.

Hillary’s “Right” to Admission

I’m belatedly getting around to this great Power Line post, “Hillary: The Third World Has a ‘Right’ to Move to the United States.”

This piece commenting on her declaration that everyone on the planet has the right to not only come to the United States, but must be admitted. The “illegal” part of “illegal immigration” completely disappears.

I suspect that this policy position probably even makes some liberals nervous and that it is why immigration was not brought up at this week’s Clinton-Trump debate.

It’s an extraordinarily radical position to take. It would have likely put Clinton into a bad light and the media doesn’t want that to happen. It would have also possibly given Trump a strong issue and the media dang sure doesn’t want that to happen in a public forum watched by millions of undecided voters.

To “conservatives” unsure of whether to vote for Trump, this position alone should concentrate your mind.

I’ll also point back to my post “The Madness of the Liberal,” wherein I question the sanity of allowing in people who clearly hate the United States and will clearly, upon admission, work to undermine them.

I am pro-immigration for high-quality people who come here to help, work hard and be free but our current immigration policy, under the control of the liberal mindset, actually seems to seek out the opposite — lower-quality third worlders from cultures hostile to the concepts of free markets, democracy, Western Judeo-Christian civilization and toleration.

As I said before, Hillary Clinton delenda est.

The Madness of the Liberal

The Post Drops Into St. Cloud is one of those must reads from Power Line that has to be read to be believed for its description of pure idiocy. The Washington Post story in question is truly Olympic Gymnastics Gold Medal-winning in its ability to twist logic into a pretzel and turn the world upside down.

The Washington Post reporters do everything but say that the horrible, bigoted people of St. Cloud, Minn., had it coming to them because they’ve been so mean to and misunderstanding of those kind, harmless, pacific Somali immigrants.

It would be impossible to find a better example of typical, daily modern journalistic malpractice. Journalists are completely clueless on how much they are despised, not trusted and they are similarly clueless on how most Americans live and feel. And they wonder why their subscribers, readership and audiences have dropped over the last few decades. Washington Post circulation was plummeting even before the internet started hollowing it out. Treating a substantial portion of your readership (i.e. conservatives in the Washington area) as fools, idiots, bigots, etc., is a recipe for disaster. And that happened. The internet simply meant that conservatives didn’t have to bite the bullet to get sports, classified ads and movie reviews. The internet also hammered its loyal liberal readership.

The reporters seem to be from a whole ‘nother planet and see something completely different than what the rest of us see.

Media bias aside, there remains the question — What are they thinking?

It’s clear that the Somali immigrants, at least some of them, are ingrates. An American community has taken them in, provided them with homes, education, charity, welfare and opportunities. And they’ve given them safety. Had they stayed in Somalia where would they be? How many would be dead? Enslaved? Press-ganged into a Muslim militia or warlord gang? How many would be living day-to-day, just trying to eke out a life? Very likely most if not all.

Did I mention these people are ingrates?

It is also clear that a significant portion of the St. Cloud Somali “community” hasn’t assimilated into the local actual St. Cloud community. It seems to be that the Somalis have no interest in assimilating.

So why did we/do we import people unwilling to integrate? It’s one thing to allow in the cream of the crop — those who want to come to America because they want to change their lives for the better and understand America’s greatness. That may have been 10,000 or so but mass immigration from people who will brook no assimilation and plan to simply move their physical presence from a hellhole to a nice place and then take advantage of the generosity of America, the local hosts and glom onto every welfare benefit they can – enabled and encouraged by bureaucrats and Democrats — is a recipe for disaster.

We did not allow the immigration of millions of communists during the cold war – that would have been foolish (even most Democrats, then, did not want that). We took in the refuseniks and objectors not the ones wanting to turn the U.S. into a copy of the home they left. So why are we practically begging to bring in hundreds of thousands, nee, millions, of Muslim immigrants, most of whom have no interest in assimilating?

This is madness. What is wrong with you, liberals?

Why import people who hate us? Do you think it really makes you superior? It only makes you a delusional fool. Along with suicidal and dangerous.

Do you travel to the tropics and eagerly seek out pestilential mosquitoes? Would you have eagerly sought out AIDS? Ebola?

Stop it!

One final point, Hillary Clinton wants to continue this suicidal parade. Donald Trump has questioned it.

Misreporters 2

Friday morning, CBS Radio purposefully misdescribed the “controversial” North Carolina law as removing “protections for LGBT people.” It does not do that. What the law does is prevent special rights (AKA exemptions from current laws) for sexually confused people. It requires those people to obey the same laws that you and I have to, i.e. we can’t go into whatever restroom we wish, whenever we want. The North Carolina law is not controversial other than someone simply insisting that it is. It does nothing new but rather reestablishes what was law for 99.9999% of North Carolina’s history.

This wave of misdescribing/misreporting the law is not an accident or through incompetence, it is part of a purposeful campaign of disinformation organized by the pro-homosexual group, the so-called “Human Rights Campaign.” It has many hyperloyal allies in the mainstream media. Many in the lamestream media see themselves as activists in league with this group. They don’t report news but are rather fighting for a cause, issuing propaganda just as any revolutionary or totalitarian lackey would.

This is a simple issue — you go to the restroom where others with your plumbing go. Your “feelings” that day or how you want to view yourself do not count.

Stepping over to misreporting at the Wall Street Journal. Recently, in the “Overheard” column in the April 6 issue, the anonymous writer described Donald Trump’s proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border as “designed to keep citizens of that country [Mexico] out” and “designed to keep their [Mexico] citizens out of the U.S.”

I happen to think such a wall to be foolish and likely to be an expensive white elephant. However, the reporters clearly misreported the purpose and intent of the wall. It is designed to keep illegal immigrants out. That some of those might be Mexican citizens is immaterial (many being kept out or citizens of other countries to the south). Being a Mexican citizen does not provide one with a carte blanche on U.S. soil. Those citizens committing criminal acts are not protected by their Mexican citizenship.

One could just as easily argue that one could break into a retail store because normally people enter the store at other times so the manner of entering the store is not important. One might also argue the same for breaking and entering private homes since the owners probably often have visitors so the manner of visitation is not important. This is completely upside down. Yet such nonsense passes these days as discussion — and a one-sided discussion it is in the news media.

The crux of those laws is the manner of entry.

The wall would not prevent Mexican citizens from entering the United States so long as they enter at the proper points and obey the law. The same is required of U.S. citizens entering Mexico. Why is this so contentious? Why is this so hard for reporters to report?

I think we know why.

One more episode of misreporting from the WSJ. The April 1 “Ahead of the Tape” column by Steven Russolillo, who seems to dueling with Justin Lahart as to who can spin unemployment numbers the most favorably for the Obama administration, was rehearsing how great the unemployment situation was becoming — 4.9% unemployment and all that. He acknowledged the labor participation rate was a bit weak, but amazingly, he saw that as a positive. Then he reasoned that if just a few more Baby Boomers retired and some more people would simply join the permanently unemployed, the unemployment rate could fall further.

He said, “And if the participation rate resumes its decadeslong descent by half a percentage point, the unemployment rate would fall to 3.4%. That hasn’t happened since the 1960s.”

That fewer people would be employed and more were actually unemployed did not seem to occur to him or maybe bother him. He focused exclusively on the official “unemployment rate.” This rate has become divorced from reality under the Obama administration propagandists at the Dept. of Labor. Had Russolillo simply acknowledged that, a fact reported several times by his employer, his article might have made more sense in a highly niched, statistically anomalous way. But he didn’t.

Amusingly, he even offered a tip of the hat to the long-discredited phantom of the mid-1970s, the Phillips Curve. He didn’t name it but worried about the phenomenon.

Then he concluded, “With the economy already near full employment, participation arguably matters more now then ever.” Wait, suddenly those permanently unemployed are back on the radar. But you just said we were at “near full employment.” How can we be near full employment when there are legions of unemployed.

Ah, life in the Age of Obama.

To people like Russolillo, the long-term unemployed aren’t people, they are just numbers. Numbers that sometimes get in the way of good news; in which case they can be ignored.

I can make it a lot easier — the unemployment rate is 0%. Why? Because everyone who is employed is employed. Of course that makes the unemployment rate 100% because those unemployed are unemployed. But they don’t count.

How Are Liberals Like Muslims?

In one way, they leave the crapholes they made of the cities, states and countries they live in to move to nicer places. They then start trying to change those places into the crapholes they left.

Perhaps it could be called the “Californians to Colorado/Montana/Northern Utah/Washington [pick one] Syndrome,” or perhaps, “Middle Eastern/North African Migration to Europe Pattern.”

Maybe it’s just the natural behavior of human locusts. Just a thought.

Profiles in Mush

You probably missed this painful story about NBC News President Deborah Turness’s visit to a group of “Hispanic lawmakers” on Capitol Hill in Washington. It didn’t go well for her.

As she groveled before them, begging forgiveness for NBC’s faux paus of having Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live (though her division has nothing to do with SNL), and listing all the favorable stories NBC News and its partner Telemundo had done lately, and how they’ve been hiring all sorts of lefty “Hispanic” correspondents, she described illegal immigrants as “Illegals.” At that point a Democratic backbencher, Rep. Juan Vargas of California, stepped in. “I’m going to stop you right there. We use the term ‘undocumented immigrants.’”

Now if Turness had been anything other than the toadying liberal simp that she and most journalists are, she’d have said something along the line of: “Who’s we, Mr. Congressman? All Congressmen? All Americans? I don’t think so, senor. You might use that term but I don’t. Congress passed the enabling laws making crossing into the United States without permission ‘illegal,’ so it seems odd that a Congressman would purposefully mischaracterize that law. Do you understand the law? I can bring in a lawyer to explain it to you. I’ll keep it simple for you because perhaps English isn’t your native language, the fact is that people who are here illegally are illegals.”

But she didn’t and spent the rest of the session grabbing her ankles and asking for more. They didn’t even appreciate her attempts to speak Spanish. But then when you kowtow to a bully you get what you deserve.

Deb, you have to understand, when you walk into a roomful of toughs and start with, “Hey, big boys, how can I pleasure you today?” Things aren’t going to go your way.

She was joined by several other NBC execs, including a couple of “diversity” types. No one defended her and everyone ended up looking around for their panties after it was over.

Cue Nelson Muntz: Ha-ha!

Sanctuary for Law-Breakers But Not the Law-Abiding

A few quick comments on the shockingly sad case of Kathryn Steinle, the woman killed by an illegal immigrant, Francisco Sanchez, with a lengthy criminal record, who had been deported several times, but always found his way back. Powerline had a useful story.

I’m fairly confident as soon as Obama’s White House heard about this the following things happened:

Someone asked how could they use this to further their goals? How could they blame Bush for this? How could they blame Congressional Republicans for this? Prep a speech about the need for more gun control — because if we had a law against using a gun to kill someone then Francisco Sanchez wouldn’t have done this.

If the story gets any national attention, that they will use this to argue for more gun control will be a given.

But what about illegal immigrant control, Mr. Obama? What about illegal immigrant felon control, Mr. President? Why don’t you enforce the laws we already have? Had you enforced them this would not have happened.

However, I suspect that the mainstream press will avoid this story if they can. The actors are on the wrong side. If Steinle had killed Sanchez, now that would be a story, in their eyes. As more than one news editor has said, “We don’t report on the planes that land safely.”

As for the “attorney for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department” Freya Horne allegedly saying that federal writs, warrants, detention orders, etc. have no legal basis or need to be honored in San Francisco — if she said that she needs to be immediately removed from office. Assuming she has passed a bar exam, as an officer of the court she knows that what she just said is spectacularly wrong. Disbarment proceedings need to be filed against her forthwith. These arrogant people need to be removed from positions of authority if they are unwilling to properly serve the public.

Here’s one for the San Francisco “sanctuary city” liberals to answer, if these federal devices do not need to be honored in San Francisco because San Francisco liberals don’t like the immigration laws, why, pray tell, is the whole country being subjected to the gay marriage “law of the land” bayonet?

Or is it that those laws are just for the unsophisticated peasantry while liberals get to choose what laws they follow?