Monday, February 6, 2017
Amnesty International Boss Endorses “Jihad in self-defence”
Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.
If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.
Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983
We are a nation of assimilated immigrants.
Immigration without assimilation is invasion.
Apparently I am nearly alone in seeing this judicial revolt as a true constitutional crisis, fully deserving impeachments by the House even though Senate convictions are unlikely. I am not arguing the wisdom of Mr. Trump’s immigration executive orders, other than to say they are hardly unexpected given his campaign; but their legality is manifest. Even those disliking them say so. The Constitution gives Federal authorities control over immigration; not states. That’s the Congress and the President; there might be room for judicial mediation if these two branches were in serious dispute on this, but they have not been asked.
Black letter law gives the President authority to suspend or delay admitting any class of immigrant he sees fit if he declares it a matter of national security. That law has been in effect for a long time. Mr. Obama used it in reverse to admit migrants and refugees; he did not see them as a threat to national security. That was his prerogative as President, whether we agree or not. A judge could not have ruled that he was wrong. Congress could impeach him, or strip him of the power (although he could veto that legislation; a simple majority ruling would not be sufficient). Neither was done and his rulings stood. The same is true now with Trump: he has black letter law on his side.
Mr. Trump does. This decision might be questioned by Congress, but even Congress has no authority to stop his actions without considerable more procedure than we have seen, and as a matter of fact it will not do so. So the President takes an action that his predecessor says is wrong, and the Courts suspend the order, because they do not find that this is a national security issue. That is not for them to find. That is a matter for the President and Congress.
This is a grave constitutional crisis, and it does not look like ending well.
SUBJ: Breaking news: Donald Trump cures cancer! The resulting headlines:
_The New York Times_ “TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON CANCER DOCTORS”
_USA TODAY_ “CANCER CURE WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE, MANY SCIENTISTS SAY”
_FORBES_ “TRUMP’S LATEST ACTION SENDS MEDICAL STOCKS CRASHING”
_NATIONAL REVIEW_ “WAS CANCER REALLY ALL THAT BAD??”
_The Washington Post_ “TRUMP’S MEDDLING MAY HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
– ONCOLOGISTS HARDEST HIT”
Shamelessly stolen from Ace Of Spades HQ website at http://ace.mu.nu/.
They’re having a contest there to see who can concoct the funniest headline. The entries in the comments are priceless.
This is a typical GOPUSA email:
Dear GOPUSA Reader,
This is an urgent alert for all American citizens born between 1931-1955.
For the last 3 years, a small team near Washington D.C. has been investigating chilling accusations of a secret U.S. government program…
The rumors? Confirmed: This program is quietly testing deadly ingredients on over 35.6 million unsuspecting senior citizens.
And today they’re releasing all the details in this shocking video exposé.[clip]
They almost never induce me to follow one of their links, but for some reason I followed this one. I have not the foggiest notion of what they want to warn me of, because after several minutes of dire warning teasing, with no possibility of fast forward, I gave up – and still had to click again to be allowed to close the window. I have no idea of who GOPUSA is, but I’ve had enough of them. If anyone knows what they are warning us of and can say so unambiguously and briefly I might look into it, but from here on, GOPUSA is junk mail for me.
The link you got in the email from GOPUSA points, as you know, to a video presentation. I hate those things too. But if you click away from the video it offers the chance to read a transcript. From that, the following list of dangerous drugs can be seen. For some reason, they missed #4, which is Alzheimer’s drugs. Aricept is mentioned.
THE 7 MOST DANGEROUS
#1: Sleeping Pills
(Ambien, Lunesta, Restoril)
#2: Cholesterol Drugs
(Statins like Baycol)
#3: Blood Pressure Drugs
(Beta-Blockers, Calcium Channel Blockers)
#5: Arthritis Drugs
(NSAIDs like Celebrex)
#6: Diabetes Drugs
(Actos, Avandia, Byetta, Metformin)
Richard L. Hardison, PLS, PE, CFedS
I do not recall any opportunity to click away from the video?
I use Pale Moon, but it should work the same in Firefox as well. Just click to “x” to kill the open tab and you should get a dialog box that gives an option of staying on the page. The page you stay on should be the transcript.
Most of those video presentations work the same way.
Richard L. Hardison, PLS, PE, CFedS
Russians Hacked Superbowl!
I cannot confirm these rumors on Twitter, but it seems the Russians leaked the Falcons playbook to the Patriots. Those evil communists may have meddled in our most precious American traditions. We might never recover from this. Until we can be certain, we must encourage the media to engage in autistic screeching so we can keep America calm and protect the national security! =)
◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊
Joshua Jordan, KSC
Darn clever, those Slavs…
Ethics of Government
I believe the ethics of providing government services and paying for them by borrowing money and giving our children and grandchildren the debt ought to be questioned and discussed if we are going to discuss ethics
Keep in mind the mentality of elected officials. The extent of their vision ends at the next election. Do whatever it takes to win the next election.
Fabricate lies, smear your opponents, misrepresent the facts. The electorate has a short memory. By the time the election is done the people
will have forgot what you said, or promised. And if they don’t, well, you won the elections and have to be recalled to correct that mistake.
Lady Gaga was political
I hope you recover from the crud soon. It’s going around. I live in Ontario and I and my family have the same thing.
Re Lady Gaga, you said: “Lady Gaga’s half time show was spectacular, and didn’t make one political statement, or indeed any statement at all.” You seem to Have forgotten that Woody Guthrie, who wrote “This Land is Your Land” had “This guitar kills fascists” written on his guitar. It was a subtle reference but I’m sure she knew exactly what she was doing.
Perhaps you are more observant than I. I saw nothing more than a very well rehearsed spectacular and a very athletic performance in higher heels than Ginger Rogers ever managed.
‘So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.’
No surprises there.
Dark matter and simplified models
It looks like the great disconnect between predicted and actual galaxy rotation may be due not to new physics or “dark matter” but an overly simplified gravity model used by astronomers to make the prediction.
The model is not reality, and the map is not the territory
I know it appeared yesterday. It cannot be repeated too often: the map is not the territory.
Subj: Squeeze play
Something else to be aware of. But after all, it’s free trade…
For many people, the main issue with the immigration order was not the fact that it temporarily limited immigration from the 7 specified countries–but the fact that it was applied to people who were already legal residents of the United States. Green Card holders were stopped at airports, reportedly against the interpretation the state department initially wanted to go with (a member of the administration reportedly told them it did apply to Green Card holders).
I don’t have a strong opinion on what security measures should be in place. I think reasonable people can support a more restrictive approach to war refugees, but (without some really clear and specific good reason) randomly and without giving them any warning making people who have already been accepted as permanent residents think they are being shut out as they are on planes to come back to the U.S. seems to violate the biblical prohibition against oppressing foreigners–and, more secularly, is likely to hurt our country’s reputation. That said, I think it was more likely a jerk negotiating tactic than (as much of the internet seems to think) a sign of an impending fascist coup. Now appointing Neil Gorsuch (who, I read, is known for taking a narrow view of administrative agency discretion in interpreting statutes) is likely to look more attractive to liberals.
Were any actually sent back? Green cards are now accepted.
Green Card holders have been sent back if this is correct: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Assali-Family-Syria-Donald-Trump-Vote-Allentown-Immigration-Ban-Travel-Order-412238593.html
Of course if it was a policy that was a net benefit, the fact that some people were injured would not make it a bad policy, sometimes there are serious trade-offs. However, in this case the Green Card interference caused problems like this without a corresponding benefit. Restrictions on travel could have been put in place without stopping people who already have been given permission to stay in the U.S. legally. I at first wondered if the bureaucracy had possible interpreted the orders expansively in order to discredit them, but instead the reports are that it was first interpreted narrowly and then Steve Bannon told government officials that, yes, it did apply to Green Card holders.
They seem to have been working it out. For eight years the immigration authorities have been working with UN and NGO supplied vetting of migrants, and very generous grants of green cards to favorites of the Obama administration officials. The case of the Iraqi translator who held a green card as a reward for service was worked out in less than a day of inconvenience to him.
However I am not making a case for the wisdom of the orders; but it is black letter law that President legally made them.
The medical industry, immigration & honesty
Good Morning Dr Pournelle,
Scattered thoughts this morning while I was reading your offering.
Our medical industry. Ever try & find a Canadian or four who gave up their Health Care Canada card to use the US services? Not going to happen, I tried on the internet through various RV groups/sites/lists, lot’s of stories of it happening but no real people. If you did I’ll bet they were immigrants.
That is not to say that the wealthy don’t cross the boarder & pay cash for things, just like Americans do for things (medical tourism).
Illegal immigration. I have to agree with the writer who said to make it more expensive for the US employer but I think what is really needed is a simple way to allow “Guest workers” into the country. Not a standard US govt operation that takes years to go thru either but something that makes more sense for the guest worker to do then just sneaking across the boarder.
We have a great deal of technology these days, the guest workers could be much easier to find if they didn’t abide by the rules. The way it stands now when the guest workers sneak in we have zero control.
Last night as I watched President Trump on the tube I realized that his telling the truth is probably scaring a lot of people, we are really used to being lied to & being told what we want to hear from our politicians!
No, we aren’t.
“We are a nation of assimilated immigrants.”
This is not true, even as a hopeful statement, and plays into the Leftist claim that all immigrants, even illegal ones, should be welcomed in our country.
The statement conflates descendants of immigrants with their parents. People who are born here are not immigrants. Calling them such prioritizes the country of their parents, not our country. This is the Leftist agenda, which seeks to keep us divided.
The statement also disregards those of us whose ancestors did not immigrate to this country, but rather, migrated to it.
Migrants brings their culture to the new land and reseed it there. That is what my English & Scottish ancestors did. As you point out, immigrants either invade an established country or assimilate into its culture.
In short, we are, or at least used to be, a country of Americans, most by birth, some – a minority – by choice, and all by great good luck.
Yes, we are, in the sense that those who use the phrase “Nation of Immigrants” generally mean it. Italians, Irish, Saxons, Jews, Irish, Poles, Balts, French, all came as immigrants; Few established ghettos and lived apart from their neighbors, and both the St Patrick’s Day and Columbus Day parades are led by the United States flag. Sometimes assimilation took two generations, rarely three; and those children of immigrants are what we refer to as a nation of immigrants. You generally have to ask their names before you can tell where they came from. That is what I mean by assimilation, and it is what used to be meant by the Melting Pot. There was no praise of “diversity” for its own sake, nor should there be. It once was possible to learn how to be an American, in a way that you can hardly learn how to be a Swede or A Dane or a Korean, or a Japanese. I know Americans of Japanese descent whom you must see, not just hear, to distinguish them from Americans of European ancestry, although their better than usual grammar is beginning to make that less true. I could say the same of Americans of Cuban and Mexican origin, or rather of their children, who were encouraged to grow up as American.
But you cannot flood the melting pot and encourage people to jump out of it and expect it to work.
Dear Mr. Pournelle,
Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, was also highly qualified, and had been praised by both Democrats and Republicans. As you recall, Senate Republicans refused to consider his nomination. It appears that the Supreme Court is now politicized, perhaps irretrievably, and nominees will be political footballs.
My question is: how do we step back from this?
Allan E. Johnson
Come now. When was the last Justice nominated in a Presidential election year confirmed before that election?
Supreme Court Justices Confirmed in Election Years
Justice Pitney, 1912 (March) — President Taft (Republican), Senate control: Republican
Justice Brandeis, 1916 (July) — President Wilson (Democrat), Senate control: Democrat
Justice Clark, 1916 (July) — President Wilson (Democrat) Senate control: Democrat
Justice Cardozo, 1932 (February) — President Hoover (Republican), Senate control: Republican
Justice Murphy, 1940 (January) — President Roosevelt (Democrat), Senate control: Democrat
Justice Kennedy, 1988 (February) — President Reagan (Republican), Senate control: Democrat
Only once since 1912 has a Supreme Court nominee been confirmed by the opposing party in an election year. It also appears that in 1968, a heavily Democratic Senate refused to confirm Johnson’s (Democrat) appointment to the Supreme Court, at least in part because it was a Presidential election year. Reagan’s appointment of Kennedy seems to be the anomaly, but Kennedy was Reagan’s third attempt to fill the seat and Kennedy apparently was a Justice no one could find a way to disagree with without looking openly political about it.
Kevin L Keegan
Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.