The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Court: President Can Bomb 7 Countries, But He Can't Slow Immigration from Them
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Strings  Include Comments

Screenshot 2017-02-09 17.46.39

Obama is said to have bombed 5 of the 7 countries, with barely a peep.

It’s right there in the Negative First Amendment: “Invade the World, Invite the World!”

It’s who we are.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. The Ninth Circus’s blatant misreading of the Constitution and Federal immigration law just goes to show that you no longer have a country. No matter what the outcome of the election is, no matter what the letter of the law is, the globalist Left will cheat, lie, steal, riot, kick, claw, and bite their way back into power.

    Wake up, America! These people are going to be taking cheap shots at Trump 24/7/365 until they cut him off at the knees. They will never, ever accept Trump or those of us who voted for him as legitimate.

    Trump cannot save this country without completely smashing the Left to the point of risking a full-blown civil war. Is he willing to do that? I doubt it. Are the lefties willing to go that far? You betcha!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/court-president-can-bomb-7-countries-but-he-cant-slow-immigration-from-them/#comment-1761589
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. I think we are going to be in serious trouble if we can’t do something about immigration. However, if the Presidential authority in this case is going to run afoul of previous legislation, or previous judicial interpretations of that legislation, then we are going to need new laws, or even — in order to override the courts — a constitutional amendment.

    Again, the Executive Order isn’t “dead”, it just has to have its merits argued in Washington State, now. The ruling is about the validity of the TRO, not the Order as such.

    As I said, Trump has to find a way to stop the issuance of visas, that’s Step #1. Then to argue for the efficacy of such an order as this one. Then to issue it when DHS, State, and the AG are all in agreement about what it means.

    I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P

    I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this.
     
    Well that one's obvious:

    Software moguls are the acknowledged - if not official - principals of Washington state.
    , @Dr. X

    I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this.
     
    They don't. This is pure, 100% judicial activism.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this."
     
    They don't. And for that matter, neither does "DHS, State, and the AG". DHS, State, and the AG all work for exactly one person: the President. And the President's power to implement immigration law is plenary.

    And even if it weren't, the law is clear and the President is clearly following it. All previous court rulings have agreed that it is the President's prerogative to stop or start (or some of each) immigration at will.

    This is not a new case. This is just judicial obstructionism. Judges don't own the country. We the People do. The President's oath is to the Constitution, not to some junped-up activists in robes. The People do not need to justify themselves to judges at every turn. This notion is a mind disease of modern liberalism.

    Judicial impeachment is available.

    , @Rod1963

    Then to issue it when DHS, State, and the AG are all in agreement about what it means.
     
    Outside of a handful of red states the rest of the state AG's will oppose Trump on just about anything EO he signs. Because they known they can run to the 9th circuit and shut him down hard and fast.

    The fact is judicial activism is out of control and the public needs to be made aware of it as well being told it's okay to publicly slam judges for making stupid decisions. Judges are not infallible , far from it it and judges be held accountable for making bad decisions by the public.

    The 9th needs to be broken up and fast if Trump wants to accomplish anything.
  3. The president’s order to use nuclear weapons isn’t subject to any approvals, in other words it’s the final word on the subject. Everyone down the chain of command all the way to the launch control officers would be duty-bound to follow the presidential order.

    http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the-bomb/

    Read More
  4. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    This is what happens when you play offense hard, the other side must commit and show it’s true colors without any chance to put on its makeup.

    We are watching the destruction of the most powerful idea system the world has ever known……from Charles 1st to today- unbroken victory after victory ……. The Puritan Cathedral.

    Ironically broken dealing with a foe it was protected from by the brave soldiers at the Gates of Vienna, Islam, where it’s tactic ever more unlimited freedom and lack of a firm stance on anything allows Islam to walk in unopposed to snap it’s neck.

    Those of us like Trump or Steve who don’t want to go down with the Cathedral are looked at like mad men when we try to storm the cockpit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    It wasn't long ago Steve was questioning the term "Cathedral" on the grounds of Puritan modesty. You don't catch that type building grandly. I mentioned that Moldbug's big thing was comparing the current ruling class to the intellectual authority of the medieval church. But of course it goes deeper than that.

    In Latin "cathedra" was the chair or throne a bishop sat upon, which is where the term "cathedral" as commonly used comes from, I assume. It's also associated with the position of teachers. The bishop part came later than the teacher part, as it derives ultimately from Greek.

    So we have this old association of authority with intellectual responsibility over the way other people think. (Teachers for the sake of instruction in this or that; bishops for the sake of your soul.) During the time of greatest influence for the Church, it naturally became associated with their temporal authority. But of course we still call heads of departments at universities "chairs."

    , @AndrewR
    What??

    The guy who believed in the divine right of kings so much that he was willing to die for it? (and did)

    What on earth does he have to do with 21st century American leftists???????

    I literally have no idea where you're coming from.

  5. The fact that the Ninth Circus and the globalist left is willing to blow its gunpowder in the first month of the Trump Presidency shows how unhinged they are.

    The idea that every law has to pass muster in the SF court room of the Ninth Circuit to be “constitutional” is insane on its face. Yet here we are.

    The problem for the Left in this country is when Trump/Miller/Bannon frame the argument as such and pull a Jackson. I think they are smart enough and cunning enough to know they have to break the judiciary here or the rest of the administration is just going to be the same shit where the ACLU or AG of California runs to the Ninth Circus and petitions for relief.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Hate to paste another tweet of mine here, after Steve was cool enough to include a couple in this post, but:
    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/829857292346589184
    , @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    "The problem for the Left in this country is when Trump/Miller/Bannon frame the argument as such and pull a Jackson."

    "pull a Jackson"? What does that mean? And which Jackson? Andy? Scoop? Jesse? Michael? Latoya?

    http://quotationsbook.com/quote/45577/
    Gotta love that "How does this quote make you feel?"
  6. @SPMoore8
    I think we are going to be in serious trouble if we can't do something about immigration. However, if the Presidential authority in this case is going to run afoul of previous legislation, or previous judicial interpretations of that legislation, then we are going to need new laws, or even -- in order to override the courts -- a constitutional amendment.

    Again, the Executive Order isn't "dead", it just has to have its merits argued in Washington State, now. The ruling is about the validity of the TRO, not the Order as such.

    As I said, Trump has to find a way to stop the issuance of visas, that's Step #1. Then to argue for the efficacy of such an order as this one. Then to issue it when DHS, State, and the AG are all in agreement about what it means.

    I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this.

    I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this.

    Well that one’s obvious:

    Software moguls are the acknowledged – if not official – principals of Washington state.

    Read More
  7. Does this mean a judge could have ruled against President Roosevelt’s embargo of iron and oil to the Empire of Japan and have prevented the Pearl Harbor attack along with the entire Pacific War?

    Mind you, the embargo was not to protect American security interests. It was to express American public sentiment (populism! Jacksonianism!) against Japan’s perceived-to-be-brutal (those rubes in “rail-through” with jingoistic notions regarding a sovereign power)actions in China.

    Read More
  8. @Jack Hanson
    The fact that the Ninth Circus and the globalist left is willing to blow its gunpowder in the first month of the Trump Presidency shows how unhinged they are.

    The idea that every law has to pass muster in the SF court room of the Ninth Circuit to be "constitutional" is insane on its face. Yet here we are.

    The problem for the Left in this country is when Trump/Miller/Bannon frame the argument as such and pull a Jackson. I think they are smart enough and cunning enough to know they have to break the judiciary here or the rest of the administration is just going to be the same shit where the ACLU or AG of California runs to the Ninth Circus and petitions for relief.

    Hate to paste another tweet of mine here, after Steve was cool enough to include a couple in this post, but:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    They don't care.
    , @william munny
    Dave, you are one of my favorite follows on Twitter. I never tweet anything, but know that even if I did, you would beat me to it anyway.
  9. Can’t they allow states to decide who they let in and how they stop them from coming in? If trump did not stop them then they could theoretically enforce any travel ban. Is this correct?

    Read More
  10. OT

    We’re drowning in rain and swollen rivers and lakes up here in Northern California. How are the southern parts?

    The Sacramento River is gigantic right now and Folsom Lake is adding more water than it can discharge. Really makes me think: what would CA look like without all these dams and artificial huge lakes? During wet winters like this all of central CA would be a big swamp. God bless modern civil engineering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Yup.

    SoCal needs some more rain, which it will probably get on Friday, which should fill the main Pyramid Lake and Castaic reservoirs on the aqueduct.

    Lake Cachuma in the "Sideways" wine country north of Santa Barbara is still almost empty.

    , @Buck Turgidson
    You might like Robert Kelley's "Battling the Inland Sea."
  11. Trump has no real power because Judges hate hate hate him. Obama had every amount of power because Judges LOVED LOVED LOVED him.

    I told you so. There is NO ZERO ZILCH possibility of even the tiniest limits to immigration. Not even from seven hell-holes. I told you. Neither Bill Gates, Amazon, Google, nor the NGOs, Media, Kardashian Klan, Twitter, Judges (the real power) or anyone else that matters will allow it. What ordinary working people want does not matter. We are mere slaves to those with real power: judges, media people, celebutards, and business oligarchs.

    Now, if a bunch of judges turned up with bad results, say their child pr0n on their computers spread all around, or their naked pictures of the latest adventure with Thai ladyboys, or what have you — the surest guarantee is that a corrupt and hostile elite is a decadent and disgusting one — that’s different. Even better if the Muslim solution to criticism of anything is adopted. FEAR matters. The FEAR veto is the only thing that can stop pure slavery of the people by the ruling corrupt elite. Its too late for that now though — maybe twenty years ago.

    No, Trump cannot order military action. Any judge, down to a municipal one, can order a halt. Because they hate HIM and more importantly US. Trump’s voters.*

    Bottom line, stop thinking that Trump can and will do anything. He won’t. He can’t. Elites will NEVER allow it and in the final counting the military and cops will follow suit. Trump will most likely be impeached or simply removed by Judicial Fiat in six months. If a Federal Judge orders him removed, that’s it. The military WILL follow their orders. [I'm sure Obama will be installed as some sort of "national alliance" if not Hillary!]

    The question is SURVIVAL. America is dead. Let it go. And don’t be confused — there is no place to run to. Europe is over-run with Muslims like America soon will be. New Zealand will take them but not you. Muslims and Billionaires. Not ordinary people. Learn to fight. Be armed. Network with ordinary people you can rely on, in real life not on the internet. Be ready to fight for your life at the drop of a hat because that’s the future. Endless anti-White male attacks by Muslims/Africans etc. egged on by Nice White Ladies who voted Hillary! and wear pussy hats, secretly or not so secretly yearning for a burqua.

    *Every single massive social change from gay marriage being law of the land to abortion to gender-queer military to men in little girl’s bathrooms to affirmative action to forced busing to anti-White quotas has come from Judges. They rule like gods because they do what elites want without having any responsibility. Don’t think there is ANY chance of closing the border. No judge at any time will ever allow it.

    Read More
  12. If they had any class at all, they’d have used my poor man’s L.A. Times headline from earlier today.

    Read More
  13. @Formerly CARealist
    OT

    We're drowning in rain and swollen rivers and lakes up here in Northern California. How are the southern parts?

    The Sacramento River is gigantic right now and Folsom Lake is adding more water than it can discharge. Really makes me think: what would CA look like without all these dams and artificial huge lakes? During wet winters like this all of central CA would be a big swamp. God bless modern civil engineering.

    Yup.

    SoCal needs some more rain, which it will probably get on Friday, which should fill the main Pyramid Lake and Castaic reservoirs on the aqueduct.

    Lake Cachuma in the “Sideways” wine country north of Santa Barbara is still almost empty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    The two main reservoirs for Santa Barbara including Lake Cachuma have gone from 7% of capacity to 14%. This video was shot by a Water District drone in September when Lake Cachuma was at 7%.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzw_r69EWtQ

    I sent it to friends back east who were appalled. Another bad winter and the reservoirs would have been dry, and the desalinization plant for Santa Barbara can only supply 1/3 the base water demand.
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    Doesn't SoCal get all its water from NorCal anyway? That's what I thought, but seems not.

    Still, Tahoe skiing must be good after years of low snowfall.
  14. It would be interesting to compare the number of countries we have bombed and total tonnage of bombs dropped under Obama to Russia over the same time period.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    The most important metric is how many journalists have been killed by the USA vs Russia. If you are a journalist, this is by far the most important statistic, indeed it's the existential question.
    , @LondonBob
    Yes but American bombs are democratic bombs, Russian bombs are Hitler bombs.
  15. Not sure I understand you. Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don’t want to invite, don’t bomb!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I'd be happy if we both stopped bombing and stopped taking in refugees. I don't really see the point of bombing ISIS or Al Qaeda in the Mideast. Neither group has the capacity to attack us from there, and it's not as if bombing some hovel in Yemen will stop Somalis from stabbing people here.

    But in principle, I don't think that bombing a country should require us to take in refugees from that country. That seems like a bad idea on multiple levels.

    , @Wilkey
    Not sure I understand you. Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees?

    If we do nothing we're obliged to take the refugees because we did nothing.

    If we do something and mess up then we're obliged to take the refugees because we messed up.

    And we're destined to mess up. If we get involved, because these places were and always will be messed up.
    , @Mikey Darmody
    That is the stupidest non sequitur I've encountered this day. If you stabbed into your neighbor's bicep with a corkscrew, would you feel obliged to give him the lease of your attic?
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Not sure I understand you. Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don’t want to invite, don’t bomb!"

    You must be pretty obtuse then. Steve has been consistently clear over the years that he doesn't want the US to do either.
    , @Reagan was basically Hitler
    Until recently we didnt really accept refugees associated with regimes that we were actively bombing, since doing so is 100% pure insanity when you think about it.

    During WWII for instance we didn't bring in any of the thousands of German and Japanese citizens left homeless by our firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo.

    Even in Vietnam we didn't bring over massive numbers of refugees until the war was almost over, and most of them were grateful allies from the South.

    This is a long term civilizational conflict. Every time we try to end it there will be an outrageous attack that drags us back. There will be no clean end, so importing internal Islamic underground armies is an especially bad idea for the West, no matter how much the Left thinks we "deserve it" for bombing them.
    , @AnotherDad

    Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees?
     
    Uh ... obviously no.

    And btw I don't think one can generally bomb a country into "barbarism". Poverty--temporary poverty--perhaps. Barbarism is a state created by barbarous people.

    Finally where are these nations? Germany, Japan, Vietnam those are some countries that got some serious US bombing. (And even their post-war "barbarism" levels seem to have been relatively unaffected. In the case of Germany and Japan perhaps improved.) This idea that US bombing has crushed the lives of most people of Iraq into barbarism, much less the limited attacks on suspected terrorist targets in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen ... laughable. Most people in those nations have never seen or heard a US bomb and don't even have any friends or family who have.

    However, ill advised, US bombing isn't responsible for their barbarism--if that's what there is--in any of these nations. That would be the character and culture or those people and in the case of ISIS atrocities, Wahhabi Islam.

    Furthermore, whatever one nation's political beef with another nation--from minor diplomatic to full scale war--none of it suggests any obligation to take their refugees. In fact, having a serious--"act of war"--conflict with another nation is probably a pretty good 1st order marker of people that you precisely do not want to take into your nation.

    And finally, by default, nations are best served by taking in *no* immigrants and preserving their nation for their own citizens.
    , @ben tillman

    Not sure I understand you. Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don’t want to invite, don’t bomb!
     
    Don't know; don't care. The American people aren't doing any bombing. So even by your line of reasoning, we have no responsibility to refugees.
  16. @Dave Pinsen
    Hate to paste another tweet of mine here, after Steve was cool enough to include a couple in this post, but:
    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/829857292346589184

    They don’t care.

    Read More
  17. I think there is less to this story than meets the eye. The panel simply refused to issue an emergency stay of a lower-court order. It seemed like a major argument they made in the decision was that there wasn’t any great urgency that required the stay–the pre-EO status quo had been in place for many years, and so letting it stay in place for another month or two while this works its way through the courts isn’t the end of the world.

    There is also a discussion of this on lawfare.

    I suspect the Trump administration could have avoided the challenges by drafting the order more carefully, perhaps making it apply only to new visas. I’m not sure if failing to do so was a rookie error or strategic–simply giving 24 hours notice of the order would have eliminated like 90% of the news coverage, which focused on people stuck at airports who’d departed for the US on valid visas. But maybe Trump wanted rhe news coverage, so he’d be seen to be trying to do something wrt the Muslim ban.

    Read More
    • Replies: @maybe
    Giving 24 hrs notice would have eliminated much of the news coverage? Or given the media and the Democrat union-controlled services time to build an even bigger squawk?
    , @5371
    [giving 24 hours notice of the order would have eliminated like 90% of the news coverage]

    Because news is always concocted strictly on the merits? You are hilarious.
    , @SPMoore8
    I already used up by reaction buttons, but I think you are correct. A better drafted order, with an AG in place (instead of an acting AG who had to be fired for refusing to defend the order) plus communication between POTUS, AG, DHS and State as to exactly was going to be excepted from the order (that vagueness was a killer) plus a lead time of say the weekend would have been a huge help. As it was, the first judicial interference came because there were travelers in limbo in NYC (IIRC) and a judge ordered them to be allowed in. That was Saturday.

    I also agree that this decision has nothing to do with the order as such, just the Washington state TRO. I expect this order, or something much like it, will be in place by Spring.
  18. That story of how nuclear command and control is handled is another of those stories that seems like it is a hundred times as important as the outrage of the day, but gets little attention. There are a small number of people (including Trump) who may find themselves woken in the middle of the night, and given ten minutes to decide whether to incinerate Western civilization. That system is utterly bugfuck nuts. Nobody could make that decision well–certainly not a 70 year old guy in the middle of what must be the most stressful time of his life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    There are a small number of people (including Trump) who may find themselves woken in the middle of the night, and given ten minutes to decide whether to incinerate Western civilization. That system is utterly bugfuck nuts.
     
    Indeed it is. Another reason why good relations between the principal nuclear powers is rather important.
    , @AndrewR
    Nuclear weapons period are "bugfuck nuts."

    I'm not retard Jeremy Corbyn who believes in unilateral nuclear disarmament, but a world free of nuclear weapons should be everyone's goal.

  19. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Not sure I understand you. Isn't there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don't want to invite, don't bomb!

    I’d be happy if we both stopped bombing and stopped taking in refugees. I don’t really see the point of bombing ISIS or Al Qaeda in the Mideast. Neither group has the capacity to attack us from there, and it’s not as if bombing some hovel in Yemen will stop Somalis from stabbing people here.

    But in principle, I don’t think that bombing a country should require us to take in refugees from that country. That seems like a bad idea on multiple levels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    The only fame Somalia got was when we bombed it twenty years ago and a movie was made, Blackhawk Down. So why are we still taking in these useless eaters as refugees? For stuff we did ages ago? Meanwhile Apple iphone is on iteration seven.
    Why do we want the slickest tech and the slowest refugees?
  20. @SPMoore8
    I think we are going to be in serious trouble if we can't do something about immigration. However, if the Presidential authority in this case is going to run afoul of previous legislation, or previous judicial interpretations of that legislation, then we are going to need new laws, or even -- in order to override the courts -- a constitutional amendment.

    Again, the Executive Order isn't "dead", it just has to have its merits argued in Washington State, now. The ruling is about the validity of the TRO, not the Order as such.

    As I said, Trump has to find a way to stop the issuance of visas, that's Step #1. Then to argue for the efficacy of such an order as this one. Then to issue it when DHS, State, and the AG are all in agreement about what it means.

    I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this.

    I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this.

    They don’t. This is pure, 100% judicial activism.

    Read More
  21. The great thing about executive orders is that you can just write another one. Judge says you can’t single out Muslim countries? Fine, apply it to every country. Please direct complaints care of the Ninth Circuit.

    Read More
  22. @Richard A.
    It would be interesting to compare the number of countries we have bombed and total tonnage of bombs dropped under Obama to Russia over the same time period.

    The most important metric is how many journalists have been killed by the USA vs Russia. If you are a journalist, this is by far the most important statistic, indeed it’s the existential question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    I would wager that more have been killed by the United States.
    , @AndrewR
    The number of journalists killed in Russia by the Russian state likely exceeds the number of journalists killed in the US by the US state, but once we factor in murders of journalists in foreign countries, it seems quite obvious that the US is the reigning champion by far.

    The number of journalists killed in the US by the US government is kind of a moot point anyway since virtually none of them have any interest in challenging the actions of the deep state. Greenwald is an obvious exception but he doesn't even live here. I'll admit that it wouldn't be much of a challenge for the government to have him killed in Brazil.

  23. So now that The Dancing Itos have weighed in with their decision, I have to ask: When those entrusted to uphold the Constitution act against it, and when most people have no idea what it says or is supposed to mean, do we even have one anymore?

    The trend line of growing imperialism has been moving in only one direction in this country since the days of George W. Bush. It greatly consolidated during the Obama years, and now with Trump it has reached the point of no return.

    I don’t want anybody to be under any illusions here. We are now riding the tiger. Those of us on the Right must recognize that our lives as we know them are dependent on having an unbroken series of victories from here on out. We can never allow the Left back into power, never allow them any material advantage, because if we do they will use dictatorial powers to stamp us out for good.

    I knew this would happen once Donald Trump was inaugurated. I steadfastly supported his campaign from the very beginning precisely because I knew it had to come to this. All the mistakes of the last 50 years must finally be accounted for. A long, ugly, generational war is before us, the decisive battle for the future of the Western world.

    I am not crying wolf about this. It is all too real. I just hope everyone appreciates what is at stake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    We can never allow the Left back into power ... because if we do they will use dictatorial powers to stamp us out for good.

    That would have been true whether or not Trump won. Hillary planned to do everything she could to stamp us out.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    The Left needs to know it has been beaten: not surgical strikes, but Sherman's March to the Sea. As long as they think a demographic victory is inevitable, they'll be impossible to work with. Once they concede that, then it will be possible to work with any Bill Clinton-types who emerge from the rubble.

    In the meantime, Trump should cut off federal funding to the universities both directly, using 1st Amendment violations as a pretext, and indirectly, by capping student borrowing limits supported by Sallie Mae (good policy in any case). Keep ICE unleashed to deport undocumented Democrats. Crack down on voter fraud. Fully prosecute protestors and agitators. Investigate police departments that don't arrest protestors. Investigate Google and Facebook for antitrust violations, etc.
    , @guest
    We're riding the tiger now, but what were we doing before? Dying by slow-poisoning. If we fall off the tiger we're dead or at least gravely injured, but we were dying anyway.

    Win or die. Thems the stakes. You can choose not to play, but that means they win by default.

    The Bill Kristols of the world bet on losing not being so bad. They were used to it, anyway. I don't think there's an upside. We end up in PC Wasteland either way (lose like a gentle-kristol or lose Trumpingly). At least now there's a chance to win.

  24. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Anti-Islam is a winning issue all over the Western world. GOP can ride this essentially forever. Already 55% are with Trump.

    The future is anti-Islam. Overt Muslim bans will be the norm very soon. Trump understands this trend that’s why he said what he said in the campaign.

    People need to prepare for a ramped up mega terrorism fueled by technology in our future. It’s coming, folks. And it will be the driver for a complete global quarantine of Islam. Essentially the question of survival ends the politics of the issue.

    Read More
  25. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Quantum Ethics.

    Rules over there have nothing to do with rules over here.

    Read More
  26. I would have thought there were all kinds of perfectly good reasons for the travel ban that MIGHT be argued.

    I know from personal experience that Haiti is a problematic country because the system of birth certification is at best erratic, and at worst totally corrupt, with hand written birth certificates mysteriously produced after the fact for people who were never registered in the first place, with doubtful facts about dates and parentage, witness signatures, and so on.

    If the Seven nations of terrorism are equally dilatory and nonfunctional, it will be very easy for terrorists to obtain fake identities and travel documents from those countries and it might well be a good idea for the US to implement extra controls on people traveling with documents issued by those nations.

    So why doesn’t the White House present some halfway logical reasons why allowing people from the Seven nations into the US presents a real and present danger? This situation is getting like the Bush administration before the Iraq invasion. George W. Bush seemed to be quivering with fear that the US would be attacked by Iraq with germ warfare at any moment if we (the US) did not strike first pre-emptively.

    At the time it seemed incomprehensible to be but I thought there might be a remote possibility that Bush and US intelligence knew something that was so awful and frightening, but real, that the general public could not be told. Now we know it was all bullshit.

    At this point the Trump White House really needs to shit or get off the pot, otherwise people are going to just start laughing at Trump’s paranoia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    As has been explained, the courts logically have no business interfering in this matter at all.
    , @Neil Templeton
    It is this. A signal for the countries listed to get their shit together. This is the message. Get your shit together and make a functional nation with whatever clay you've got. Otherwise, deal with the consequences. America owes neither debt nor mercy to these countries, rather she must attend to the needs of her citizens, such as they may be. And that is all.
    , @guest
    Trump has to present a rational defense of his policies to some court? Why? Are they Logic Judges? Are we still in presidential debate season? Is it Question Time?

    No. Trump doesn't have to make his case that way. "I'm president, shut up." That's a case.

  27. @Intelligent Dasein
    So now that The Dancing Itos have weighed in with their decision, I have to ask: When those entrusted to uphold the Constitution act against it, and when most people have no idea what it says or is supposed to mean, do we even have one anymore?

    The trend line of growing imperialism has been moving in only one direction in this country since the days of George W. Bush. It greatly consolidated during the Obama years, and now with Trump it has reached the point of no return.

    I don't want anybody to be under any illusions here. We are now riding the tiger. Those of us on the Right must recognize that our lives as we know them are dependent on having an unbroken series of victories from here on out. We can never allow the Left back into power, never allow them any material advantage, because if we do they will use dictatorial powers to stamp us out for good.

    I knew this would happen once Donald Trump was inaugurated. I steadfastly supported his campaign from the very beginning precisely because I knew it had to come to this. All the mistakes of the last 50 years must finally be accounted for. A long, ugly, generational war is before us, the decisive battle for the future of the Western world.

    I am not crying wolf about this. It is all too real. I just hope everyone appreciates what is at stake.

    We can never allow the Left back into power … because if we do they will use dictatorial powers to stamp us out for good.

    That would have been true whether or not Trump won. Hillary planned to do everything she could to stamp us out.

    Read More
  28. @NOTA
    I think there is less to this story than meets the eye. The panel simply refused to issue an emergency stay of a lower-court order. It seemed like a major argument they made in the decision was that there wasn't any great urgency that required the stay--the pre-EO status quo had been in place for many years, and so letting it stay in place for another month or two while this works its way through the courts isn't the end of the world.

    There is also a discussion of this on lawfare.

    I suspect the Trump administration could have avoided the challenges by drafting the order more carefully, perhaps making it apply only to new visas. I'm not sure if failing to do so was a rookie error or strategic--simply giving 24 hours notice of the order would have eliminated like 90% of the news coverage, which focused on people stuck at airports who'd departed for the US on valid visas. But maybe Trump wanted rhe news coverage, so he'd be seen to be trying to do something wrt the Muslim ban.

    Giving 24 hrs notice would have eliminated much of the news coverage? Or given the media and the Democrat union-controlled services time to build an even bigger squawk?

    Read More
  29. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Not sure I understand you. Isn't there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don't want to invite, don't bomb!

    Not sure I understand you. Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees?

    If we do nothing we’re obliged to take the refugees because we did nothing.

    If we do something and mess up then we’re obliged to take the refugees because we messed up.

    And we’re destined to mess up. If we get involved, because these places were and always will be messed up.

    Read More
  30. @Intelligent Dasein
    So now that The Dancing Itos have weighed in with their decision, I have to ask: When those entrusted to uphold the Constitution act against it, and when most people have no idea what it says or is supposed to mean, do we even have one anymore?

    The trend line of growing imperialism has been moving in only one direction in this country since the days of George W. Bush. It greatly consolidated during the Obama years, and now with Trump it has reached the point of no return.

    I don't want anybody to be under any illusions here. We are now riding the tiger. Those of us on the Right must recognize that our lives as we know them are dependent on having an unbroken series of victories from here on out. We can never allow the Left back into power, never allow them any material advantage, because if we do they will use dictatorial powers to stamp us out for good.

    I knew this would happen once Donald Trump was inaugurated. I steadfastly supported his campaign from the very beginning precisely because I knew it had to come to this. All the mistakes of the last 50 years must finally be accounted for. A long, ugly, generational war is before us, the decisive battle for the future of the Western world.

    I am not crying wolf about this. It is all too real. I just hope everyone appreciates what is at stake.

    The Left needs to know it has been beaten: not surgical strikes, but Sherman’s March to the Sea. As long as they think a demographic victory is inevitable, they’ll be impossible to work with. Once they concede that, then it will be possible to work with any Bill Clinton-types who emerge from the rubble.

    In the meantime, Trump should cut off federal funding to the universities both directly, using 1st Amendment violations as a pretext, and indirectly, by capping student borrowing limits supported by Sallie Mae (good policy in any case). Keep ICE unleashed to deport undocumented Democrats. Crack down on voter fraud. Fully prosecute protestors and agitators. Investigate police departments that don’t arrest protestors. Investigate Google and Facebook for antitrust violations, etc.

    Read More
    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Um, protesting is not a crime per se nor should it be. You need to sit the fuck down right now, Kim Jong Un.

    People who commit crimes during protests should be fully prosecuted, and we should do a lot more to prevent and punish rioting, but the idea that "protesters" need to be arrested and prosecuted is beyond vile. Just because leftists use often the term "protester" to describe criminals doesn't mean protesting is or should be considered criminal.

    Disgusting.

  31. @NOTA
    I think there is less to this story than meets the eye. The panel simply refused to issue an emergency stay of a lower-court order. It seemed like a major argument they made in the decision was that there wasn't any great urgency that required the stay--the pre-EO status quo had been in place for many years, and so letting it stay in place for another month or two while this works its way through the courts isn't the end of the world.

    There is also a discussion of this on lawfare.

    I suspect the Trump administration could have avoided the challenges by drafting the order more carefully, perhaps making it apply only to new visas. I'm not sure if failing to do so was a rookie error or strategic--simply giving 24 hours notice of the order would have eliminated like 90% of the news coverage, which focused on people stuck at airports who'd departed for the US on valid visas. But maybe Trump wanted rhe news coverage, so he'd be seen to be trying to do something wrt the Muslim ban.

    [giving 24 hours notice of the order would have eliminated like 90% of the news coverage]

    Because news is always concocted strictly on the merits? You are hilarious.

    Read More
  32. @SPMoore8
    I think we are going to be in serious trouble if we can't do something about immigration. However, if the Presidential authority in this case is going to run afoul of previous legislation, or previous judicial interpretations of that legislation, then we are going to need new laws, or even -- in order to override the courts -- a constitutional amendment.

    Again, the Executive Order isn't "dead", it just has to have its merits argued in Washington State, now. The ruling is about the validity of the TRO, not the Order as such.

    As I said, Trump has to find a way to stop the issuance of visas, that's Step #1. Then to argue for the efficacy of such an order as this one. Then to issue it when DHS, State, and the AG are all in agreement about what it means.

    I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this.

    “I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this.”

    They don’t. And for that matter, neither does “DHS, State, and the AG”. DHS, State, and the AG all work for exactly one person: the President. And the President’s power to implement immigration law is plenary.

    And even if it weren’t, the law is clear and the President is clearly following it. All previous court rulings have agreed that it is the President’s prerogative to stop or start (or some of each) immigration at will.

    This is not a new case. This is just judicial obstructionism. Judges don’t own the country. We the People do. The President’s oath is to the Constitution, not to some junped-up activists in robes. The People do not need to justify themselves to judges at every turn. This notion is a mind disease of modern liberalism.

    Judicial impeachment is available.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I watched some legal academic on TV saying that the President's making judgements about which foreigners to keep out, which explicitly is his duty, is "not okay". She kept using this phrase, "not okay", as though she thought it were an actual legal argument.

    Really it was her way of saying that the law only means whatever she and her ilk think it should mean at this moment.

    "Not okay" is one of the current signatures of the stealth totalitarians.
  33. @Jonathan Mason
    I would have thought there were all kinds of perfectly good reasons for the travel ban that MIGHT be argued.

    I know from personal experience that Haiti is a problematic country because the system of birth certification is at best erratic, and at worst totally corrupt, with hand written birth certificates mysteriously produced after the fact for people who were never registered in the first place, with doubtful facts about dates and parentage, witness signatures, and so on.

    If the Seven nations of terrorism are equally dilatory and nonfunctional, it will be very easy for terrorists to obtain fake identities and travel documents from those countries and it might well be a good idea for the US to implement extra controls on people traveling with documents issued by those nations.

    So why doesn't the White House present some halfway logical reasons why allowing people from the Seven nations into the US presents a real and present danger? This situation is getting like the Bush administration before the Iraq invasion. George W. Bush seemed to be quivering with fear that the US would be attacked by Iraq with germ warfare at any moment if we (the US) did not strike first pre-emptively.

    At the time it seemed incomprehensible to be but I thought there might be a remote possibility that Bush and US intelligence knew something that was so awful and frightening, but real, that the general public could not be told. Now we know it was all bullshit.

    At this point the Trump White House really needs to shit or get off the pot, otherwise people are going to just start laughing at Trump's paranoia.

    As has been explained, the courts logically have no business interfering in this matter at all.

    Read More
  34. Trump does not have to offer any evidence at all.
    It would be as if the night before D-Day, a court stayed the attack to review evidence to decide whether it was a good idea or not.
    The judiciary simply has no role in foreign policy.
    It is absurd that a district court ” so called judge”, unelected, is running foreign policy, while the elected president with the duty do so, is not allowed to.
    I think Trump doesn’t have to follow this . Coequal branches.
    This fight will eventually need to be fought.
    This would be a good issue.
    Maybe not the right time.
    Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2- not every law is judicially reviewable.

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    This isn't simply "foreign policy."

    Permanent residents were barred from entry due to this appalling order, the economy was disrupted and families were damaged. I support major restrictions on immigration but there are so many things wrong with this order that it's hard to know where to begin.

    It seems most commenters here operate under the premise that pissing off the left is a sufficient justification for any policy whatsoever.

  35. @Steve Sailer
    Yup.

    SoCal needs some more rain, which it will probably get on Friday, which should fill the main Pyramid Lake and Castaic reservoirs on the aqueduct.

    Lake Cachuma in the "Sideways" wine country north of Santa Barbara is still almost empty.

    The two main reservoirs for Santa Barbara including Lake Cachuma have gone from 7% of capacity to 14%. This video was shot by a Water District drone in September when Lake Cachuma was at 7%.

    I sent it to friends back east who were appalled. Another bad winter and the reservoirs would have been dry, and the desalinization plant for Santa Barbara can only supply 1/3 the base water demand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I imagine the beautiful oak forests of the Santa Ynez mountains are in danger if Santa Barbara doesn't get a lot of rain in the next two months.
    , @AndrewR
    The tribal elders tell tales of a time very long ago when the environmentalist movement was full of immigration restrictionists.
  36. @NOTA
    I think there is less to this story than meets the eye. The panel simply refused to issue an emergency stay of a lower-court order. It seemed like a major argument they made in the decision was that there wasn't any great urgency that required the stay--the pre-EO status quo had been in place for many years, and so letting it stay in place for another month or two while this works its way through the courts isn't the end of the world.

    There is also a discussion of this on lawfare.

    I suspect the Trump administration could have avoided the challenges by drafting the order more carefully, perhaps making it apply only to new visas. I'm not sure if failing to do so was a rookie error or strategic--simply giving 24 hours notice of the order would have eliminated like 90% of the news coverage, which focused on people stuck at airports who'd departed for the US on valid visas. But maybe Trump wanted rhe news coverage, so he'd be seen to be trying to do something wrt the Muslim ban.

    I already used up by reaction buttons, but I think you are correct. A better drafted order, with an AG in place (instead of an acting AG who had to be fired for refusing to defend the order) plus communication between POTUS, AG, DHS and State as to exactly was going to be excepted from the order (that vagueness was a killer) plus a lead time of say the weekend would have been a huge help. As it was, the first judicial interference came because there were travelers in limbo in NYC (IIRC) and a judge ordered them to be allowed in. That was Saturday.

    I also agree that this decision has nothing to do with the order as such, just the Washington state TRO. I expect this order, or something much like it, will be in place by Spring.

    Read More
  37. @Anonym
    The most important metric is how many journalists have been killed by the USA vs Russia. If you are a journalist, this is by far the most important statistic, indeed it's the existential question.

    I would wager that more have been killed by the United States.

    Read More
  38. @Almost Missouri

    "I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this."
     
    They don't. And for that matter, neither does "DHS, State, and the AG". DHS, State, and the AG all work for exactly one person: the President. And the President's power to implement immigration law is plenary.

    And even if it weren't, the law is clear and the President is clearly following it. All previous court rulings have agreed that it is the President's prerogative to stop or start (or some of each) immigration at will.

    This is not a new case. This is just judicial obstructionism. Judges don't own the country. We the People do. The President's oath is to the Constitution, not to some junped-up activists in robes. The People do not need to justify themselves to judges at every turn. This notion is a mind disease of modern liberalism.

    Judicial impeachment is available.

    I watched some legal academic on TV saying that the President’s making judgements about which foreigners to keep out, which explicitly is his duty, is “not okay”. She kept using this phrase, “not okay”, as though she thought it were an actual legal argument.

    Really it was her way of saying that the law only means whatever she and her ilk think it should mean at this moment.

    “Not okay” is one of the current signatures of the stealth totalitarians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Not okay was also a popular phrase among pre-schoolers as they started to learn about fairness and life's nuances. Some SJWs seem stuck in that environment, so should be sent away with a juice box and some crackers before nap time.
  39. @SPMoore8
    I think we are going to be in serious trouble if we can't do something about immigration. However, if the Presidential authority in this case is going to run afoul of previous legislation, or previous judicial interpretations of that legislation, then we are going to need new laws, or even -- in order to override the courts -- a constitutional amendment.

    Again, the Executive Order isn't "dead", it just has to have its merits argued in Washington State, now. The ruling is about the validity of the TRO, not the Order as such.

    As I said, Trump has to find a way to stop the issuance of visas, that's Step #1. Then to argue for the efficacy of such an order as this one. Then to issue it when DHS, State, and the AG are all in agreement about what it means.

    I am not sure however why Microsoft, Google, etc. have any standing in this.

    Then to issue it when DHS, State, and the AG are all in agreement about what it means.

    Outside of a handful of red states the rest of the state AG’s will oppose Trump on just about anything EO he signs. Because they known they can run to the 9th circuit and shut him down hard and fast.

    The fact is judicial activism is out of control and the public needs to be made aware of it as well being told it’s okay to publicly slam judges for making stupid decisions. Judges are not infallible , far from it it and judges be held accountable for making bad decisions by the public.

    The 9th needs to be broken up and fast if Trump wants to accomplish anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Did the respected judges on the 9th circuit realize that if there is a Muslim Terrorist attack in the US from today on, they own it?

    However, I think it is already working in Trump's favor. More ordinary Americans now believe that the crazy 9th circuit has put their lives in danger ...

    Also, I wonder if Americans have thought what Muslim attitudes to dogs mean for Americans?

    All those people who work so hard to save the beagles or whatever might all of a sudden find that their efforts were for naught.
    , @Jack Hanson
    "Outside of a handful of red states"

    You do realise that it is the "blue states" which number a handful after 8 years of Obama?

    I agree with what you say about the Ninth though. I think Trump is giving them the rope to which they will hang themselves. Arizona has dealt with an unelected mandarin inventing reasons to overturn the will of the people for years now. I doubt the rest of America will like it anymore than we have.
  40. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Not sure I understand you. Isn't there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don't want to invite, don't bomb!

    That is the stupidest non sequitur I’ve encountered this day. If you stabbed into your neighbor’s bicep with a corkscrew, would you feel obliged to give him the lease of your attic?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    It depends on what had led up to the stabbing.
    , @Bill
    Stabbing his bicep doesn't make him homeless. You certainly are obliged to provide him with bandages. Blowing up his house definitely would entitle him to yours.
  41. @Jonathan Mason
    I would have thought there were all kinds of perfectly good reasons for the travel ban that MIGHT be argued.

    I know from personal experience that Haiti is a problematic country because the system of birth certification is at best erratic, and at worst totally corrupt, with hand written birth certificates mysteriously produced after the fact for people who were never registered in the first place, with doubtful facts about dates and parentage, witness signatures, and so on.

    If the Seven nations of terrorism are equally dilatory and nonfunctional, it will be very easy for terrorists to obtain fake identities and travel documents from those countries and it might well be a good idea for the US to implement extra controls on people traveling with documents issued by those nations.

    So why doesn't the White House present some halfway logical reasons why allowing people from the Seven nations into the US presents a real and present danger? This situation is getting like the Bush administration before the Iraq invasion. George W. Bush seemed to be quivering with fear that the US would be attacked by Iraq with germ warfare at any moment if we (the US) did not strike first pre-emptively.

    At the time it seemed incomprehensible to be but I thought there might be a remote possibility that Bush and US intelligence knew something that was so awful and frightening, but real, that the general public could not be told. Now we know it was all bullshit.

    At this point the Trump White House really needs to shit or get off the pot, otherwise people are going to just start laughing at Trump's paranoia.

    It is this. A signal for the countries listed to get their shit together. This is the message. Get your shit together and make a functional nation with whatever clay you’ve got. Otherwise, deal with the consequences. America owes neither debt nor mercy to these countries, rather she must attend to the needs of her citizens, such as they may be. And that is all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    The 9th has decided that every human on earth is a citizen of the US, de facto.

    They have defined our nation out of existence in doing so.

    For this they should receive the traitor's penalty.
    , @AndrewR
    Your confidence far exceeds your knowledge

    All of those countries, with the obvious exception of Somalia and probably Sudan, had or have their "shit together." And to the extent that they don't, it's overwhelmingly due to US policy.

    If Americans' safety was the primary motive, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be not only on the list but at the top of it.
  42. @Rod1963

    Then to issue it when DHS, State, and the AG are all in agreement about what it means.
     
    Outside of a handful of red states the rest of the state AG's will oppose Trump on just about anything EO he signs. Because they known they can run to the 9th circuit and shut him down hard and fast.

    The fact is judicial activism is out of control and the public needs to be made aware of it as well being told it's okay to publicly slam judges for making stupid decisions. Judges are not infallible , far from it it and judges be held accountable for making bad decisions by the public.

    The 9th needs to be broken up and fast if Trump wants to accomplish anything.

    Did the respected judges on the 9th circuit realize that if there is a Muslim Terrorist attack in the US from today on, they own it?

    However, I think it is already working in Trump’s favor. More ordinary Americans now believe that the crazy 9th circuit has put their lives in danger …

    Also, I wonder if Americans have thought what Muslim attitudes to dogs mean for Americans?

    All those people who work so hard to save the beagles or whatever might all of a sudden find that their efforts were for naught.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    No, they won't "own it" because, with the exception of Somalia, none of those countries have a record of sending terrorists to the US.

    Why aren't Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan on that list? Clearly, the motive of the order was not to "protect Americans."
    , @Dissident

    Also, I wonder if Americans have thought what Muslim attitudes to dogs mean for Americans?
     
    Couldn't one ask the same question with regard to Muslim attitudes toward women and homosexuals?
  43. The State Department is in charge of settling refugees, if I am not mistaken. Can’t they start purposefully directing refugees into a few select narrow regions: San Francisco, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Boston, The Hamptons, Medina Washington, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buck Turgidson
    along w the other utopian Hypocritevilles of Boulder, Austin, Iowa City, Madison, Bethesda... it's a long list
    , @Clyde

    The State Department is in charge of settling refugees, if I am not mistaken. Can’t they start purposefully directing refugees into a few select narrow regions: San Francisco, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Boston, The Hamptons, Medina Washington, etc.
     
    Bomb those elite zip codes with what they crave. Bomb them with refugees and mosques with federally subsidized/amped up loud speakers for their call to alleged prayer. They want idiocracy then give them idiocracy,
  44. Trump could direct the Secretary of State to close US embassies and consulates in certain countries to anyone but US embassy and foreign diplomatic personnel – pending a thorough review of security procedures. On-line and postal access would likewise be limited. Again, for security purposes. An immediate safety stand-down for the purpose of protecting US State Department personnel and their dependents.

    No consulate access, no visas.

    Read More
  45. @NOTA
    @prosa123:

    That story of how nuclear command and control is handled is another of those stories that seems like it is a hundred times as important as the outrage of the day, but gets little attention. There are a small number of people (including Trump) who may find themselves woken in the middle of the night, and given ten minutes to decide whether to incinerate Western civilization. That system is utterly bugfuck nuts. Nobody could make that decision well--certainly not a 70 year old guy in the middle of what must be the most stressful time of his life.

    There are a small number of people (including Trump) who may find themselves woken in the middle of the night, and given ten minutes to decide whether to incinerate Western civilization. That system is utterly bugfuck nuts.

    Indeed it is. Another reason why good relations between the principal nuclear powers is rather important.

    Read More
  46. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Not sure I understand you. Isn't there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don't want to invite, don't bomb!

    “Not sure I understand you. Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don’t want to invite, don’t bomb!”

    You must be pretty obtuse then. Steve has been consistently clear over the years that he doesn’t want the US to do either.

    Read More
  47. @Rod1963

    Then to issue it when DHS, State, and the AG are all in agreement about what it means.
     
    Outside of a handful of red states the rest of the state AG's will oppose Trump on just about anything EO he signs. Because they known they can run to the 9th circuit and shut him down hard and fast.

    The fact is judicial activism is out of control and the public needs to be made aware of it as well being told it's okay to publicly slam judges for making stupid decisions. Judges are not infallible , far from it it and judges be held accountable for making bad decisions by the public.

    The 9th needs to be broken up and fast if Trump wants to accomplish anything.

    “Outside of a handful of red states”

    You do realise that it is the “blue states” which number a handful after 8 years of Obama?

    I agree with what you say about the Ninth though. I think Trump is giving them the rope to which they will hang themselves. Arizona has dealt with an unelected mandarin inventing reasons to overturn the will of the people for years now. I doubt the rest of America will like it anymore than we have.

    Read More
  48. @Alfa158
    The two main reservoirs for Santa Barbara including Lake Cachuma have gone from 7% of capacity to 14%. This video was shot by a Water District drone in September when Lake Cachuma was at 7%.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzw_r69EWtQ

    I sent it to friends back east who were appalled. Another bad winter and the reservoirs would have been dry, and the desalinization plant for Santa Barbara can only supply 1/3 the base water demand.

    I imagine the beautiful oak forests of the Santa Ynez mountains are in danger if Santa Barbara doesn’t get a lot of rain in the next two months.

    Read More
  49. @Anonymous
    This is what happens when you play offense hard, the other side must commit and show it's true colors without any chance to put on its makeup.

    We are watching the destruction of the most powerful idea system the world has ever known......from Charles 1st to today- unbroken victory after victory ....... The Puritan Cathedral.

    Ironically broken dealing with a foe it was protected from by the brave soldiers at the Gates of Vienna, Islam, where it's tactic ever more unlimited freedom and lack of a firm stance on anything allows Islam to walk in unopposed to snap it's neck.

    Those of us like Trump or Steve who don't want to go down with the Cathedral are looked at like mad men when we try to storm the cockpit.

    It wasn’t long ago Steve was questioning the term “Cathedral” on the grounds of Puritan modesty. You don’t catch that type building grandly. I mentioned that Moldbug’s big thing was comparing the current ruling class to the intellectual authority of the medieval church. But of course it goes deeper than that.

    In Latin “cathedra” was the chair or throne a bishop sat upon, which is where the term “cathedral” as commonly used comes from, I assume. It’s also associated with the position of teachers. The bishop part came later than the teacher part, as it derives ultimately from Greek.

    So we have this old association of authority with intellectual responsibility over the way other people think. (Teachers for the sake of instruction in this or that; bishops for the sake of your soul.) During the time of greatest influence for the Church, it naturally became associated with their temporal authority. But of course we still call heads of departments at universities “chairs.”

    Read More
  50. @Intelligent Dasein
    So now that The Dancing Itos have weighed in with their decision, I have to ask: When those entrusted to uphold the Constitution act against it, and when most people have no idea what it says or is supposed to mean, do we even have one anymore?

    The trend line of growing imperialism has been moving in only one direction in this country since the days of George W. Bush. It greatly consolidated during the Obama years, and now with Trump it has reached the point of no return.

    I don't want anybody to be under any illusions here. We are now riding the tiger. Those of us on the Right must recognize that our lives as we know them are dependent on having an unbroken series of victories from here on out. We can never allow the Left back into power, never allow them any material advantage, because if we do they will use dictatorial powers to stamp us out for good.

    I knew this would happen once Donald Trump was inaugurated. I steadfastly supported his campaign from the very beginning precisely because I knew it had to come to this. All the mistakes of the last 50 years must finally be accounted for. A long, ugly, generational war is before us, the decisive battle for the future of the Western world.

    I am not crying wolf about this. It is all too real. I just hope everyone appreciates what is at stake.

    We’re riding the tiger now, but what were we doing before? Dying by slow-poisoning. If we fall off the tiger we’re dead or at least gravely injured, but we were dying anyway.

    Win or die. Thems the stakes. You can choose not to play, but that means they win by default.

    The Bill Kristols of the world bet on losing not being so bad. They were used to it, anyway. I don’t think there’s an upside. We end up in PC Wasteland either way (lose like a gentle-kristol or lose Trumpingly). At least now there’s a chance to win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    I'm not sure what it was about my comment that made you think I was disparaging the situation. I have never been a constitutionalist; I've been predicting and welcoming the transition from republicanism to imperialism quite consistently, and I have more than once approvingly likened Trump to Julius Caesar.

    But I also know what this entails. The imperial age brings with it the reign of pure power politics. No more "civil rights," no more constitutional protections as we understand them. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the kangaroo courts of Leftist enforcement.

    You seem to be agreed that we are already at war. If that's the case, then I have nothing more to add. I just wanted to make sure everyone was awake to that fact.
  51. @Jack Hanson
    The fact that the Ninth Circus and the globalist left is willing to blow its gunpowder in the first month of the Trump Presidency shows how unhinged they are.

    The idea that every law has to pass muster in the SF court room of the Ninth Circuit to be "constitutional" is insane on its face. Yet here we are.

    The problem for the Left in this country is when Trump/Miller/Bannon frame the argument as such and pull a Jackson. I think they are smart enough and cunning enough to know they have to break the judiciary here or the rest of the administration is just going to be the same shit where the ACLU or AG of California runs to the Ninth Circus and petitions for relief.

    “The problem for the Left in this country is when Trump/Miller/Bannon frame the argument as such and pull a Jackson.”

    “pull a Jackson”? What does that mean? And which Jackson? Andy? Scoop? Jesse? Michael? Latoya?

    http://quotationsbook.com/quote/45577/

    Gotta love that “How does this quote make you feel?”

    Read More
  52. @Formerly CARealist
    OT

    We're drowning in rain and swollen rivers and lakes up here in Northern California. How are the southern parts?

    The Sacramento River is gigantic right now and Folsom Lake is adding more water than it can discharge. Really makes me think: what would CA look like without all these dams and artificial huge lakes? During wet winters like this all of central CA would be a big swamp. God bless modern civil engineering.

    You might like Robert Kelley’s “Battling the Inland Sea.”

    Read More
  53. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Not sure I understand you. Isn't there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don't want to invite, don't bomb!

    Until recently we didnt really accept refugees associated with regimes that we were actively bombing, since doing so is 100% pure insanity when you think about it.

    During WWII for instance we didn’t bring in any of the thousands of German and Japanese citizens left homeless by our firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo.

    Even in Vietnam we didn’t bring over massive numbers of refugees until the war was almost over, and most of them were grateful allies from the South.

    This is a long term civilizational conflict. Every time we try to end it there will be an outrageous attack that drags us back. There will be no clean end, so importing internal Islamic underground armies is an especially bad idea for the West, no matter how much the Left thinks we “deserve it” for bombing them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    This is a long term civilizational conflict. Every time we try to end it there will be an outrageous attack that drags us back.
     
    Utterly delusional. They can't do a damn thing to us without our active cooperation.
  54. @Jonathan Mason
    I would have thought there were all kinds of perfectly good reasons for the travel ban that MIGHT be argued.

    I know from personal experience that Haiti is a problematic country because the system of birth certification is at best erratic, and at worst totally corrupt, with hand written birth certificates mysteriously produced after the fact for people who were never registered in the first place, with doubtful facts about dates and parentage, witness signatures, and so on.

    If the Seven nations of terrorism are equally dilatory and nonfunctional, it will be very easy for terrorists to obtain fake identities and travel documents from those countries and it might well be a good idea for the US to implement extra controls on people traveling with documents issued by those nations.

    So why doesn't the White House present some halfway logical reasons why allowing people from the Seven nations into the US presents a real and present danger? This situation is getting like the Bush administration before the Iraq invasion. George W. Bush seemed to be quivering with fear that the US would be attacked by Iraq with germ warfare at any moment if we (the US) did not strike first pre-emptively.

    At the time it seemed incomprehensible to be but I thought there might be a remote possibility that Bush and US intelligence knew something that was so awful and frightening, but real, that the general public could not be told. Now we know it was all bullshit.

    At this point the Trump White House really needs to shit or get off the pot, otherwise people are going to just start laughing at Trump's paranoia.

    Trump has to present a rational defense of his policies to some court? Why? Are they Logic Judges? Are we still in presidential debate season? Is it Question Time?

    No. Trump doesn’t have to make his case that way. “I’m president, shut up.” That’s a case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Trump has to present a rational defense of his policies to some court? Why? Are they Logic Judges? Are we still in presidential debate season? Is it Question Time?
    No. Trump doesn’t have to make his case that way. “I’m president, shut up.” That’s a case.
     
    But have we learned nothing from George W. Bush and Iraq. Wasn't that a case of "shut up everybody, I know best how to defend our country." And what was the outcome? A completely unnecessary war, ISIS filling power vacuums some of the invaded territory, and certainly no overall reduction in global terrorism. Apparently the poor boob believed that US soldiers would be welcomed as liberators by flower-throwing crowds, so it is a pity no one had the courage to set him straight before he stepped into the abyss.

    Trump is saying that excluding travelers from the seven countries for the next few months is a matter of great and immediate urgency to protect the USA, but there is no explanation of the rationale except "because I say so."

    At this point in time no one really knows whether Trump is a statesman of strategic genius or a lunatic, so it is best to leave open both possibilities and give him a chance to make his case, if he has one, before declaring unswerving allegiance to the Leader.
  55. @Mr. Anon
    The State Department is in charge of settling refugees, if I am not mistaken. Can't they start purposefully directing refugees into a few select narrow regions: San Francisco, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Boston, The Hamptons, Medina Washington, etc.

    along w the other utopian Hypocritevilles of Boulder, Austin, Iowa City, Madison, Bethesda… it’s a long list

    Read More
  56. @guest
    We're riding the tiger now, but what were we doing before? Dying by slow-poisoning. If we fall off the tiger we're dead or at least gravely injured, but we were dying anyway.

    Win or die. Thems the stakes. You can choose not to play, but that means they win by default.

    The Bill Kristols of the world bet on losing not being so bad. They were used to it, anyway. I don't think there's an upside. We end up in PC Wasteland either way (lose like a gentle-kristol or lose Trumpingly). At least now there's a chance to win.

    I’m not sure what it was about my comment that made you think I was disparaging the situation. I have never been a constitutionalist; I’ve been predicting and welcoming the transition from republicanism to imperialism quite consistently, and I have more than once approvingly likened Trump to Julius Caesar.

    But I also know what this entails. The imperial age brings with it the reign of pure power politics. No more “civil rights,” no more constitutional protections as we understand them. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the kangaroo courts of Leftist enforcement.

    You seem to be agreed that we are already at war. If that’s the case, then I have nothing more to add. I just wanted to make sure everyone was awake to that fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I wasn't disagreeing, I don't think, just expanding. I did say "you" at one point, but I didn't mean you. I meant the collective you.
  57. @Steve Sailer
    I imagine the beautiful oak forests of the Santa Ynez mountains are in danger if Santa Barbara doesn't get a lot of rain in the next two months.

    Is immigration a causal factor in this situation?

    Read More
  58. @Steve Sailer
    Yup.

    SoCal needs some more rain, which it will probably get on Friday, which should fill the main Pyramid Lake and Castaic reservoirs on the aqueduct.

    Lake Cachuma in the "Sideways" wine country north of Santa Barbara is still almost empty.

    Doesn’t SoCal get all its water from NorCal anyway? That’s what I thought, but seems not.

    Still, Tahoe skiing must be good after years of low snowfall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    last year the skiing was wonderful. I haven't been yet this year simply because of all the rain. This current storm is so warm it feels almost tropical. I'm worried that it's going to wash away the snow and flood downstream even more.

    At the higher elevations the snow stays crisp and cold all through the spring. After a really heavy winter the snowboarders will go hiking and ski on big patches all the way through August. In 2011 lots of the snow never melted... it never had a chance.
  59. @Neil Templeton
    It is this. A signal for the countries listed to get their shit together. This is the message. Get your shit together and make a functional nation with whatever clay you've got. Otherwise, deal with the consequences. America owes neither debt nor mercy to these countries, rather she must attend to the needs of her citizens, such as they may be. And that is all.

    The 9th has decided that every human on earth is a citizen of the US, de facto.

    They have defined our nation out of existence in doing so.

    For this they should receive the traitor’s penalty.

    Read More
  60. @Dave Pinsen
    I'd be happy if we both stopped bombing and stopped taking in refugees. I don't really see the point of bombing ISIS or Al Qaeda in the Mideast. Neither group has the capacity to attack us from there, and it's not as if bombing some hovel in Yemen will stop Somalis from stabbing people here.

    But in principle, I don't think that bombing a country should require us to take in refugees from that country. That seems like a bad idea on multiple levels.

    The only fame Somalia got was when we bombed it twenty years ago and a movie was made, Blackhawk Down. So why are we still taking in these useless eaters as refugees? For stuff we did ages ago? Meanwhile Apple iphone is on iteration seven.
    Why do we want the slickest tech and the slowest refugees?

    Read More
  61. @Mr. Anon
    The State Department is in charge of settling refugees, if I am not mistaken. Can't they start purposefully directing refugees into a few select narrow regions: San Francisco, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Boston, The Hamptons, Medina Washington, etc.

    The State Department is in charge of settling refugees, if I am not mistaken. Can’t they start purposefully directing refugees into a few select narrow regions: San Francisco, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Boston, The Hamptons, Medina Washington, etc.

    Bomb those elite zip codes with what they crave. Bomb them with refugees and mosques with federally subsidized/amped up loud speakers for their call to alleged prayer. They want idiocracy then give them idiocracy,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    I love this idea - not sure how practical it is. It could be called the "Eat your own cooking" act. Trouble is, it's very easy for rich people to move, and often homes are merely a fraction of their wealth.
  62. @prosa123
    The president's order to use nuclear weapons isn't subject to any approvals, in other words it's the final word on the subject. Everyone down the chain of command all the way to the launch control officers would be duty-bound to follow the presidential order.
    http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the-bomb/

    In theory.

    Read More
  63. @Dave Pinsen
    Hate to paste another tweet of mine here, after Steve was cool enough to include a couple in this post, but:
    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/829857292346589184

    Dave, you are one of my favorite follows on Twitter. I never tweet anything, but know that even if I did, you would beat me to it anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Thanks William, but you should tweet. There's a good chance you'll find something interesting before I do.
  64. @Anonymous
    This is what happens when you play offense hard, the other side must commit and show it's true colors without any chance to put on its makeup.

    We are watching the destruction of the most powerful idea system the world has ever known......from Charles 1st to today- unbroken victory after victory ....... The Puritan Cathedral.

    Ironically broken dealing with a foe it was protected from by the brave soldiers at the Gates of Vienna, Islam, where it's tactic ever more unlimited freedom and lack of a firm stance on anything allows Islam to walk in unopposed to snap it's neck.

    Those of us like Trump or Steve who don't want to go down with the Cathedral are looked at like mad men when we try to storm the cockpit.

    What??

    The guy who believed in the divine right of kings so much that he was willing to die for it? (and did)

    What on earth does he have to do with 21st century American leftists???????

    I literally have no idea where you’re coming from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Moldberg has the background concept of the Catherdral down pat.

    My take, Devine right of Kings is pretty stupid and Freedom is a big winner so a lot of progress is made since.

    However if you reject (King is 100% right always) with (Nothing is right ever,therefore no judgement is valid on anything) you have merely switched to different monster.

    Remember the critical commentary some people have of Hitler was that he was a weak willed moderate and those very people are blindly defended by the Left.

    Sorry anybody going Hitler mode cannot be supported. But remember the quote (there are no enemies on or to my the Left) means the Left's philosophy is the inverse of Devine of Kings, which is the monster of pure nilism
    , @guest
    He's talking about the ones who cut off Charles' head (that is, the Puritans), not Charles himself.


    If you want to know what that has to do with 21st century American leftists, go to the blog Unqualified Reservations.
  65. @NOTA
    @prosa123:

    That story of how nuclear command and control is handled is another of those stories that seems like it is a hundred times as important as the outrage of the day, but gets little attention. There are a small number of people (including Trump) who may find themselves woken in the middle of the night, and given ten minutes to decide whether to incinerate Western civilization. That system is utterly bugfuck nuts. Nobody could make that decision well--certainly not a 70 year old guy in the middle of what must be the most stressful time of his life.

    Nuclear weapons period are “bugfuck nuts.”

    I’m not retard Jeremy Corbyn who believes in unilateral nuclear disarmament, but a world free of nuclear weapons should be everyone’s goal.

    Read More
  66. @Anonym
    The most important metric is how many journalists have been killed by the USA vs Russia. If you are a journalist, this is by far the most important statistic, indeed it's the existential question.

    The number of journalists killed in Russia by the Russian state likely exceeds the number of journalists killed in the US by the US state, but once we factor in murders of journalists in foreign countries, it seems quite obvious that the US is the reigning champion by far.

    The number of journalists killed in the US by the US government is kind of a moot point anyway since virtually none of them have any interest in challenging the actions of the deep state. Greenwald is an obvious exception but he doesn’t even live here. I’ll admit that it wouldn’t be much of a challenge for the government to have him killed in Brazil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    I realize that both numbers are pretty inconsequential. I am just making the point that small chances of very bad things are a lot more important when you are a member of the group they are happening to than not. And that we get our news from journalists, so it just so happens that state sponsored deaths of brave, idealistic journalists are portrayed as a very big deal... by journalists.
  67. @Dave Pinsen
    The Left needs to know it has been beaten: not surgical strikes, but Sherman's March to the Sea. As long as they think a demographic victory is inevitable, they'll be impossible to work with. Once they concede that, then it will be possible to work with any Bill Clinton-types who emerge from the rubble.

    In the meantime, Trump should cut off federal funding to the universities both directly, using 1st Amendment violations as a pretext, and indirectly, by capping student borrowing limits supported by Sallie Mae (good policy in any case). Keep ICE unleashed to deport undocumented Democrats. Crack down on voter fraud. Fully prosecute protestors and agitators. Investigate police departments that don't arrest protestors. Investigate Google and Facebook for antitrust violations, etc.

    Um, protesting is not a crime per se nor should it be. You need to sit the fuck down right now, Kim Jong Un.

    People who commit crimes during protests should be fully prosecuted, and we should do a lot more to prevent and punish rioting, but the idea that “protesters” need to be arrested and prosecuted is beyond vile. Just because leftists use often the term “protester” to describe criminals doesn’t mean protesting is or should be considered criminal.

    Disgusting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I meant protestors who were breaking the law. Substitute rioters for protestors if you like.
  68. @pepperinmono
    Trump does not have to offer any evidence at all.
    It would be as if the night before D-Day, a court stayed the attack to review evidence to decide whether it was a good idea or not.
    The judiciary simply has no role in foreign policy.
    It is absurd that a district court " so called judge", unelected, is running foreign policy, while the elected president with the duty do so, is not allowed to.
    I think Trump doesn't have to follow this . Coequal branches.
    This fight will eventually need to be fought.
    This would be a good issue.
    Maybe not the right time.
    Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2- not every law is judicially reviewable.

    This isn’t simply “foreign policy.”

    Permanent residents were barred from entry due to this appalling order, the economy was disrupted and families were damaged. I support major restrictions on immigration but there are so many things wrong with this order that it’s hard to know where to begin.

    It seems most commenters here operate under the premise that pissing off the left is a sufficient justification for any policy whatsoever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    >Permanent residents were barred from entry

    Good. We don't need or want permanent residents from any of those countries.

    >the economy was disrupted

    The economy exists to serve us (in theory). The economy is not an end.

    >and families were damaged

    Fewer by an order of magnitude than the number of families who have lost a loved one to immigrant crime I am sure
  69. @Alfa158
    The two main reservoirs for Santa Barbara including Lake Cachuma have gone from 7% of capacity to 14%. This video was shot by a Water District drone in September when Lake Cachuma was at 7%.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzw_r69EWtQ

    I sent it to friends back east who were appalled. Another bad winter and the reservoirs would have been dry, and the desalinization plant for Santa Barbara can only supply 1/3 the base water demand.

    The tribal elders tell tales of a time very long ago when the environmentalist movement was full of immigration restrictionists.

    Read More
  70. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Not sure I understand you. Isn't there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don't want to invite, don't bomb!

    Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees?

    Uh … obviously no.

    And btw I don’t think one can generally bomb a country into “barbarism”. Poverty–temporary poverty–perhaps. Barbarism is a state created by barbarous people.

    Finally where are these nations? Germany, Japan, Vietnam those are some countries that got some serious US bombing. (And even their post-war “barbarism” levels seem to have been relatively unaffected. In the case of Germany and Japan perhaps improved.) This idea that US bombing has crushed the lives of most people of Iraq into barbarism, much less the limited attacks on suspected terrorist targets in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen … laughable. Most people in those nations have never seen or heard a US bomb and don’t even have any friends or family who have.

    However, ill advised, US bombing isn’t responsible for their barbarism–if that’s what there is–in any of these nations. That would be the character and culture or those people and in the case of ISIS atrocities, Wahhabi Islam.

    Furthermore, whatever one nation’s political beef with another nation–from minor diplomatic to full scale war–none of it suggests any obligation to take their refugees. In fact, having a serious–”act of war”–conflict with another nation is probably a pretty good 1st order marker of people that you precisely do not want to take into your nation.

    And finally, by default, nations are best served by taking in *no* immigrants and preserving their nation for their own citizens.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anonym
    • Replies: @Fun
    ISIS and the Wahhabists didn't have a footholds in Iraq and Libya until the U.S. helped destabilize the strongmen that were keeping them in check.
  71. @Mikey Darmody
    That is the stupidest non sequitur I've encountered this day. If you stabbed into your neighbor's bicep with a corkscrew, would you feel obliged to give him the lease of your attic?

    It depends on what had led up to the stabbing.

    Read More
  72. @Neil Templeton
    It is this. A signal for the countries listed to get their shit together. This is the message. Get your shit together and make a functional nation with whatever clay you've got. Otherwise, deal with the consequences. America owes neither debt nor mercy to these countries, rather she must attend to the needs of her citizens, such as they may be. And that is all.

    Your confidence far exceeds your knowledge

    All of those countries, with the obvious exception of Somalia and probably Sudan, had or have their “shit together.” And to the extent that they don’t, it’s overwhelmingly due to US policy.

    If Americans’ safety was the primary motive, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be not only on the list but at the top of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Perhaps I should have added: "including, but not limited to..."

    Even if I granted that some of the countries are highly functional, it begs the question, "Why do their citizens demand to come to America?" If another nation were to determine that I was unwelcome or high risk, I would accept the decision. No questions asked, no need to ascertain validity of motive. It's a matter of respect. Can you get to that?
  73. @The most deplorable one
    Did the respected judges on the 9th circuit realize that if there is a Muslim Terrorist attack in the US from today on, they own it?

    However, I think it is already working in Trump's favor. More ordinary Americans now believe that the crazy 9th circuit has put their lives in danger ...

    Also, I wonder if Americans have thought what Muslim attitudes to dogs mean for Americans?

    All those people who work so hard to save the beagles or whatever might all of a sudden find that their efforts were for naught.

    No, they won’t “own it” because, with the exception of Somalia, none of those countries have a record of sending terrorists to the US.

    Why aren’t Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan on that list? Clearly, the motive of the order was not to “protect Americans.”

    Read More
  74. I think I silenced discussion of this topic in the Faculty Senate of a major public university.

    The chancellor opened the meeting speaking to “the Executive Order” with the usual worry about how this “impacts the university community”, but the remarks, I thought, were remarkably calibrated, offering that the “position of the University is to seek a better balance between national security and the benefits of scholarly interchange.” Hey, the chancellor is actually in a position to be affected by the changes in Washington and appeared to take a sober view of that reality.

    The chair of the University Committee then followed with a Power Point slide of “America, Open for All” with a cartoon image of the Statue of Liberty along with that Emma Lazarus poem. I mean, who at a Faculty Senate meeting would in the least part disagree with that sentiment?

    The UC chair went full social-justice warrior — you never go full social-justice warrior. I stood up to the microphone to comment that I whole heartedly endorsed the position offered by the Chancellor, with the Chancellor positively beaming with pride regarding my support for better balance between “legitimate national security needs” against, you know, the whole litany of why persons in other countries need to come here.

    I went on to say that I disagreed strongly with the stance of the UC Chair, citing that “Open Borders” was never the policy of any previous administration, claiming that a close relative was denied a tourist visa on the basis of his “nationality, ethnicity, residence in a conflict zone, and the concern that he was deemed a risk for overstaying that visa to take up residence in the U.S.”

    That a close relative of blue-eyed white-haired pink-skinned me could be kept out of the U.S. by a previous administration’s State Department, no one dared to ask any questions about which president (Bill Clinton) or the nationality in question (Dutch — would I make any of this up?) let along ethnicity (our racial profile is certainly not confined to Northern Europe).

    So remember, the claim of “America, Open to All” is not quite the Cathedral’s position, so you can go Alinsky Rule 4 on them.

    Read More
  75. Dave Pinsen, those tweets are outstanding! Great point!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Thanks, Ben. Was surprised to see Ann Coulter retweeted one of them.
  76. I think we are going to be in serious trouble if we can’t do something about immigration. However, if the Presidential authority in this case is going to run afoul of previous legislation, or previous judicial interpretations of that legislation, then we are going to need new laws, or even — in order to override the courts — a constitutional amendment.

    As far as I can tell, this is nonsense. The need for a Constitutional Amendment, I mean. Congress can totally remake the courts with good old fashioned laws.

    Not sure I understand you. Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don’t want to invite, don’t bomb!

    Somehow, your formulation seems even more barbaric.

    The great thing about executive orders is that you can just write another one. Judge says you can’t single out Muslim countries? Fine, apply it to every country. Please direct complaints care of the Ninth Circuit.

    I’ve been thinking the same thing this entire time. But I’ve also been thinking that the black-robed Lords and Ladies probably have some expedited way to annul similar EOs, based on precedent and similarity. Just a hunch, though.

    Read More
  77. I mentioned that Moldbug’s big thing was comparing the current ruling class to the intellectual authority of the medieval church. But of course it goes deeper than that.

    The Church is not consistently associated with subversion and treachery in Medieval history, the way our elite is. The synagogue, on the other hand…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Indeed !!!!!! The 3 victories - Charles Martel, Reconquista, and Gates of Vienna - all Catholic led.

    The Protestants and their godless current Cathedral have no record in defending against this organism.

    They are incredibly awkward around it no matter the awesome power and might coming from the scientific and industrial revolution.

    Hat tip to NNT, they are looking Fragile in a way the older Catholic system was not.
  78. @Anonymous Nephew
    Doesn't SoCal get all its water from NorCal anyway? That's what I thought, but seems not.

    Still, Tahoe skiing must be good after years of low snowfall.

    last year the skiing was wonderful. I haven’t been yet this year simply because of all the rain. This current storm is so warm it feels almost tropical. I’m worried that it’s going to wash away the snow and flood downstream even more.

    At the higher elevations the snow stays crisp and cold all through the spring. After a really heavy winter the snowboarders will go hiking and ski on big patches all the way through August. In 2011 lots of the snow never melted… it never had a chance.

    Read More
  79. I can’t help but think that no one would care about banning Russians from America considering all the demonization of Russia by the media. Muslims, on the other hand are like the second coming of Jesus Christ; at least that’s how the progressive loonies portray them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    I can’t help but think that no one would care about banning Russians from America considering all the demonization of Russia by the media. Muslims, on the other hand are like the second coming of Jesus Christ; at least that’s how the progressive loonies portray them.
     
    iSteve had pointed out that there are many Russians in American and he offered a theory as to how they came here -- it was under a "penumbra" of something called the Jackson-Vanik amendment to a trade bill?

    Apart from that, Orthodox Christians and Russians in particular are the folks that sent great-Grandfather packing after burning down his house in Ukraine in the early 20th century. Russians and by extension any of their patron ethnicities are much worse people than, say, Israel's local adversaries let alone, say, Germans. The elevated status of Muslims, whether in the Middle East or in Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo) is a guilt-expatiation thing with respect to what Mr. Netanyahu is "doing in our name." The adversaries of the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia are also largely Orthodox Christians. Believe-it-or-not, feeling regarding 20th century Germany don't appear to be as deep-seated as what "the Russians had done to your ancestors."

    , @Dave Pinsen
    How much of this is due to W.? Steve's written about W.'s pre-9/11 campaign against profiling of Arab Americans, and amazingly we took in more Muslim immigrants in the 10 years after 9/11 than the 10 years before. If Al Gore had won instead of W., would that have been true? Not rhetorical; I'm curious about everyone's opinions on that.
  80. Judge Gorton, Boston federal court. Nothing wrong with Trump’s EO, now get out of my courtroom:

    “Because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims,” Gorton wrote in his 21-page decision, “an extension of the restraining order at the present time is not warranted.”

    Judge Gorton repeatedly read from Trump’s order, at one point asking the plaintiffs’ attorneys: “Where does the executive order specifically mention a Muslim ban or majority-Muslim countries?”

    “And for two plaintiffs holding student (F-1) visas, Gorton wrote that assuming the State Department revoked their visas, “the F-1 plaintiffs have no property or liberty interest in those visas and thus no due process claim with respect to the supposed revocation.”

    “Gorton said these plaintiffs are here in the country now and there is no indication that the government is seeking to deport them. “If they choose to leave the country, as non-resident aliens, they have no right to re-enter,” he wrote.”

    Judge Gorton’s ruling:

    http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2017/02/Gorton-order.pdf

    http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/02/03/boston-judge-trump-immigration-hearing

    Read More
  81. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @AndrewR
    What??

    The guy who believed in the divine right of kings so much that he was willing to die for it? (and did)

    What on earth does he have to do with 21st century American leftists???????

    I literally have no idea where you're coming from.

    Moldberg has the background concept of the Catherdral down pat.

    My take, Devine right of Kings is pretty stupid and Freedom is a big winner so a lot of progress is made since.

    However if you reject (King is 100% right always) with (Nothing is right ever,therefore no judgement is valid on anything) you have merely switched to different monster.

    Remember the critical commentary some people have of Hitler was that he was a weak willed moderate and those very people are blindly defended by the Left.

    Sorry anybody going Hitler mode cannot be supported. But remember the quote (there are no enemies on or to my the Left) means the Left’s philosophy is the inverse of Devine of Kings, which is the monster of pure nilism

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "King is 100% right always" is a principle held by basically no one ever.

    Papal infallibility comes close, in a sense, but of course no Catholic thinks the Pope is right all the time, or even when he acts as the sovereign of the Vatican's territory. Only when he's being officially pope-y.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Moldbug's stronger argument against democracy, IMO, is the success of the corporate model in business: a CEO rather than a king. Of course, there are corporate governance issues (golden parachutes, boards colluding with CEOs against shareholders on executive pay, etc.), and some companies are better than others in that regard, but no Fortune 100 company is run as a democracy.
  82. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Not sure I understand you. Isn't there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don't want to invite, don't bomb!

    Not sure I understand you. Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees? If you don’t want to invite, don’t bomb!

    Don’t know; don’t care. The American people aren’t doing any bombing. So even by your line of reasoning, we have no responsibility to refugees.

    Read More
  83. Jill
    says:

    February 10, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Unfortunately, the usurpation of power by the judiciary, long enabled by “our” cowardly and treacherous political class, has gone so far that we are in a “heads the left wins, tails the right loses” situation. All the left needs is some schmuck judge in Washington state to decide that he wants to paralyze the entire federal gov’t on immigration. This seems to be the case on every facet of law, until Congress decides to rein in the judiciary.

    Read More
  84. […] about the courts or the Constitution, the headline from a Steve Sailer blog post says it all: Court: President Can Bomb 7 Countries, But He Can’t Slow Immigration from Them The post […]

    Read More
  85. @Fidelios Automata
    I can't help but think that no one would care about banning Russians from America considering all the demonization of Russia by the media. Muslims, on the other hand are like the second coming of Jesus Christ; at least that's how the progressive loonies portray them.

    I can’t help but think that no one would care about banning Russians from America considering all the demonization of Russia by the media. Muslims, on the other hand are like the second coming of Jesus Christ; at least that’s how the progressive loonies portray them.

    iSteve had pointed out that there are many Russians in American and he offered a theory as to how they came here — it was under a “penumbra” of something called the Jackson-Vanik amendment to a trade bill?

    Apart from that, Orthodox Christians and Russians in particular are the folks that sent great-Grandfather packing after burning down his house in Ukraine in the early 20th century. Russians and by extension any of their patron ethnicities are much worse people than, say, Israel’s local adversaries let alone, say, Germans. The elevated status of Muslims, whether in the Middle East or in Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo) is a guilt-expatiation thing with respect to what Mr. Netanyahu is “doing in our name.” The adversaries of the Muslims in the former Yugoslavia are also largely Orthodox Christians. Believe-it-or-not, feeling regarding 20th century Germany don’t appear to be as deep-seated as what “the Russians had done to your ancestors.”

    Read More
  86. @AndrewR
    The number of journalists killed in Russia by the Russian state likely exceeds the number of journalists killed in the US by the US state, but once we factor in murders of journalists in foreign countries, it seems quite obvious that the US is the reigning champion by far.

    The number of journalists killed in the US by the US government is kind of a moot point anyway since virtually none of them have any interest in challenging the actions of the deep state. Greenwald is an obvious exception but he doesn't even live here. I'll admit that it wouldn't be much of a challenge for the government to have him killed in Brazil.

    I realize that both numbers are pretty inconsequential. I am just making the point that small chances of very bad things are a lot more important when you are a member of the group they are happening to than not. And that we get our news from journalists, so it just so happens that state sponsored deaths of brave, idealistic journalists are portrayed as a very big deal… by journalists.

    Read More
  87. @AndrewR
    This isn't simply "foreign policy."

    Permanent residents were barred from entry due to this appalling order, the economy was disrupted and families were damaged. I support major restrictions on immigration but there are so many things wrong with this order that it's hard to know where to begin.

    It seems most commenters here operate under the premise that pissing off the left is a sufficient justification for any policy whatsoever.

    >Permanent residents were barred from entry

    Good. We don’t need or want permanent residents from any of those countries.

    >the economy was disrupted

    The economy exists to serve us (in theory). The economy is not an end.

    >and families were damaged

    Fewer by an order of magnitude than the number of families who have lost a loved one to immigrant crime I am sure

    Read More
  88. @Clyde

    The State Department is in charge of settling refugees, if I am not mistaken. Can’t they start purposefully directing refugees into a few select narrow regions: San Francisco, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Boston, The Hamptons, Medina Washington, etc.
     
    Bomb those elite zip codes with what they crave. Bomb them with refugees and mosques with federally subsidized/amped up loud speakers for their call to alleged prayer. They want idiocracy then give them idiocracy,

    I love this idea – not sure how practical it is. It could be called the “Eat your own cooking” act. Trouble is, it’s very easy for rich people to move, and often homes are merely a fraction of their wealth.

    Read More
  89. @Intelligent Dasein
    I'm not sure what it was about my comment that made you think I was disparaging the situation. I have never been a constitutionalist; I've been predicting and welcoming the transition from republicanism to imperialism quite consistently, and I have more than once approvingly likened Trump to Julius Caesar.

    But I also know what this entails. The imperial age brings with it the reign of pure power politics. No more "civil rights," no more constitutional protections as we understand them. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the kangaroo courts of Leftist enforcement.

    You seem to be agreed that we are already at war. If that's the case, then I have nothing more to add. I just wanted to make sure everyone was awake to that fact.

    I wasn’t disagreeing, I don’t think, just expanding. I did say “you” at one point, but I didn’t mean you. I meant the collective you.

    Read More
  90. @AndrewR
    What??

    The guy who believed in the divine right of kings so much that he was willing to die for it? (and did)

    What on earth does he have to do with 21st century American leftists???????

    I literally have no idea where you're coming from.

    He’s talking about the ones who cut off Charles’ head (that is, the Puritans), not Charles himself.

    If you want to know what that has to do with 21st century American leftists, go to the blog Unqualified Reservations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Oh. Yes I've read Moldbug obviously. I thought anonymous was saying Charles I was a proto-leftist. He chose poor wording.
  91. The court was talking about people with a green card who had been exempted from the ban (and can join American armed forces if their green card or visa covers the term of their enlistment). The court said that because the exemption was made by an official and not President Trump, it may not be binding on officials. So the court was saying that a president, and only him, has that power, and he should announce the exemption. It was very creative interpretation, like when Al Capone was jailed for offences that the statute of limitations had run out on.

    Read More
  92. maybe Trump and Bannon should have better tried a total, unlimited ban on Muslims. They this would have been canceled by the courts, and Trump could have offered a deal with the 7-country ban he has actually proposed. Would that not have been the kind of deal-making Trump is talking about all the time?

    Read More
  93. Bomb their us embassies (after evacuation of course.)

    No visas for you! (Seinfeld)

    Read More
  94. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Svigor

    I mentioned that Moldbug’s big thing was comparing the current ruling class to the intellectual authority of the medieval church. But of course it goes deeper than that.
     
    The Church is not consistently associated with subversion and treachery in Medieval history, the way our elite is. The synagogue, on the other hand...

    Indeed !!!!!! The 3 victories – Charles Martel, Reconquista, and Gates of Vienna – all Catholic led.

    The Protestants and their godless current Cathedral have no record in defending against this organism.

    They are incredibly awkward around it no matter the awesome power and might coming from the scientific and industrial revolution.

    Hat tip to NNT, they are looking Fragile in a way the older Catholic system was not.

    Read More
  95. @william munny
    Dave, you are one of my favorite follows on Twitter. I never tweet anything, but know that even if I did, you would beat me to it anyway.

    Thanks William, but you should tweet. There’s a good chance you’ll find something interesting before I do.

    Read More
  96. @AndrewR
    Um, protesting is not a crime per se nor should it be. You need to sit the fuck down right now, Kim Jong Un.

    People who commit crimes during protests should be fully prosecuted, and we should do a lot more to prevent and punish rioting, but the idea that "protesters" need to be arrested and prosecuted is beyond vile. Just because leftists use often the term "protester" to describe criminals doesn't mean protesting is or should be considered criminal.

    Disgusting.

    I meant protestors who were breaking the law. Substitute rioters for protestors if you like.

    Read More
  97. @ben tillman
    Dave Pinsen, those tweets are outstanding! Great point!

    Thanks, Ben. Was surprised to see Ann Coulter retweeted one of them.

    Read More
  98. @Fidelios Automata
    I can't help but think that no one would care about banning Russians from America considering all the demonization of Russia by the media. Muslims, on the other hand are like the second coming of Jesus Christ; at least that's how the progressive loonies portray them.

    How much of this is due to W.? Steve’s written about W.’s pre-9/11 campaign against profiling of Arab Americans, and amazingly we took in more Muslim immigrants in the 10 years after 9/11 than the 10 years before. If Al Gore had won instead of W., would that have been true? Not rhetorical; I’m curious about everyone’s opinions on that.

    Read More
  99. @guest
    Trump has to present a rational defense of his policies to some court? Why? Are they Logic Judges? Are we still in presidential debate season? Is it Question Time?

    No. Trump doesn't have to make his case that way. "I'm president, shut up." That's a case.

    Trump has to present a rational defense of his policies to some court? Why? Are they Logic Judges? Are we still in presidential debate season? Is it Question Time?
    No. Trump doesn’t have to make his case that way. “I’m president, shut up.” That’s a case.

    But have we learned nothing from George W. Bush and Iraq. Wasn’t that a case of “shut up everybody, I know best how to defend our country.” And what was the outcome? A completely unnecessary war, ISIS filling power vacuums some of the invaded territory, and certainly no overall reduction in global terrorism. Apparently the poor boob believed that US soldiers would be welcomed as liberators by flower-throwing crowds, so it is a pity no one had the courage to set him straight before he stepped into the abyss.

    Trump is saying that excluding travelers from the seven countries for the next few months is a matter of great and immediate urgency to protect the USA, but there is no explanation of the rationale except “because I say so.”

    At this point in time no one really knows whether Trump is a statesman of strategic genius or a lunatic, so it is best to leave open both possibilities and give him a chance to make his case, if he has one, before declaring unswerving allegiance to the Leader.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    You want the Ninth Circuit to pass judgement on US wars? Have you ever thought, even for a moment, about what courts are actually for?
    , @guest
    I think you'll recall part of the build-up to Iraq (the very fact that I can say "the Iraq war build-up" and people know exactly what I mean speaks to the fact that it wasn't started by Bush alone, ex cathedra) was a slog through Congress (not to mention the U.N., but they don't matter, anyway). However, presidents absolutely do have recognized plenary powers over war. That's howcome they've started so many on their own, too many to count. And the court system doesn't go over the justification for each one before they happen, couldn't if they wanted to, and in fact shouldn't be able to in my opinion.

    Now, they do have oversight of various aspects of the War on Terror, as they should. But this immigration issue, specifically, as carried out by Trump based on a clearly-worded law, isn't the sort of thing that needs to be rationally justified before a judge. Trump has plenary power in this realm, as have other presidents before him.

    What you seem to be asking for is for Trump to justify his policy, on the grounds that, what, an unrestrained Bush made policy errors in Iraq? Well, the political branches get to make those decisions. Judges don't. (Not that judges aren't political; let's call them the *less* political branch for now.) Congress was as much to blame for the Iraq Fiasco as our hubristic president.

  100. Was reading on a financial discussion today about how Trumps edict that whenever Federal agencies issue a new rule, they must repeal two might have a significant effect on reducing civil aviation safety, (and of course each anti-terrorism measure will have to be met with the removal of two more.)

    Read More
  101. @Dave Pinsen
    I meant protestors who were breaking the law. Substitute rioters for protestors if you like.

    Then why not say that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Given the behavior of leftist protestors lately, "protestors" and "rioters" became conflated in my mind. Too late to edit it.
  102. @guest
    He's talking about the ones who cut off Charles' head (that is, the Puritans), not Charles himself.


    If you want to know what that has to do with 21st century American leftists, go to the blog Unqualified Reservations.

    Oh. Yes I’ve read Moldbug obviously. I thought anonymous was saying Charles I was a proto-leftist. He chose poor wording.

    Read More
  103. @Mikey Darmody
    That is the stupidest non sequitur I've encountered this day. If you stabbed into your neighbor's bicep with a corkscrew, would you feel obliged to give him the lease of your attic?

    Stabbing his bicep doesn’t make him homeless. You certainly are obliged to provide him with bandages. Blowing up his house definitely would entitle him to yours.

    Read More
  104. @Reagan was basically Hitler
    Until recently we didnt really accept refugees associated with regimes that we were actively bombing, since doing so is 100% pure insanity when you think about it.

    During WWII for instance we didn't bring in any of the thousands of German and Japanese citizens left homeless by our firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo.

    Even in Vietnam we didn't bring over massive numbers of refugees until the war was almost over, and most of them were grateful allies from the South.

    This is a long term civilizational conflict. Every time we try to end it there will be an outrageous attack that drags us back. There will be no clean end, so importing internal Islamic underground armies is an especially bad idea for the West, no matter how much the Left thinks we "deserve it" for bombing them.

    This is a long term civilizational conflict. Every time we try to end it there will be an outrageous attack that drags us back.

    Utterly delusional. They can’t do a damn thing to us without our active cooperation.

    Read More
  105. @Jonathan Mason

    Trump has to present a rational defense of his policies to some court? Why? Are they Logic Judges? Are we still in presidential debate season? Is it Question Time?
    No. Trump doesn’t have to make his case that way. “I’m president, shut up.” That’s a case.
     
    But have we learned nothing from George W. Bush and Iraq. Wasn't that a case of "shut up everybody, I know best how to defend our country." And what was the outcome? A completely unnecessary war, ISIS filling power vacuums some of the invaded territory, and certainly no overall reduction in global terrorism. Apparently the poor boob believed that US soldiers would be welcomed as liberators by flower-throwing crowds, so it is a pity no one had the courage to set him straight before he stepped into the abyss.

    Trump is saying that excluding travelers from the seven countries for the next few months is a matter of great and immediate urgency to protect the USA, but there is no explanation of the rationale except "because I say so."

    At this point in time no one really knows whether Trump is a statesman of strategic genius or a lunatic, so it is best to leave open both possibilities and give him a chance to make his case, if he has one, before declaring unswerving allegiance to the Leader.

    You want the Ninth Circuit to pass judgement on US wars? Have you ever thought, even for a moment, about what courts are actually for?

    Read More
  106. New development in the saga of the Deplorable 9th Circuit Judges Who Run The Risk of being Blamed for Future Terrorist Attacks:

    Read More
  107. @Anonymous
    Moldberg has the background concept of the Catherdral down pat.

    My take, Devine right of Kings is pretty stupid and Freedom is a big winner so a lot of progress is made since.

    However if you reject (King is 100% right always) with (Nothing is right ever,therefore no judgement is valid on anything) you have merely switched to different monster.

    Remember the critical commentary some people have of Hitler was that he was a weak willed moderate and those very people are blindly defended by the Left.

    Sorry anybody going Hitler mode cannot be supported. But remember the quote (there are no enemies on or to my the Left) means the Left's philosophy is the inverse of Devine of Kings, which is the monster of pure nilism

    “King is 100% right always” is a principle held by basically no one ever.

    Papal infallibility comes close, in a sense, but of course no Catholic thinks the Pope is right all the time, or even when he acts as the sovereign of the Vatican’s territory. Only when he’s being officially pope-y.

    Read More
  108. @Jonathan Mason

    Trump has to present a rational defense of his policies to some court? Why? Are they Logic Judges? Are we still in presidential debate season? Is it Question Time?
    No. Trump doesn’t have to make his case that way. “I’m president, shut up.” That’s a case.
     
    But have we learned nothing from George W. Bush and Iraq. Wasn't that a case of "shut up everybody, I know best how to defend our country." And what was the outcome? A completely unnecessary war, ISIS filling power vacuums some of the invaded territory, and certainly no overall reduction in global terrorism. Apparently the poor boob believed that US soldiers would be welcomed as liberators by flower-throwing crowds, so it is a pity no one had the courage to set him straight before he stepped into the abyss.

    Trump is saying that excluding travelers from the seven countries for the next few months is a matter of great and immediate urgency to protect the USA, but there is no explanation of the rationale except "because I say so."

    At this point in time no one really knows whether Trump is a statesman of strategic genius or a lunatic, so it is best to leave open both possibilities and give him a chance to make his case, if he has one, before declaring unswerving allegiance to the Leader.

    I think you’ll recall part of the build-up to Iraq (the very fact that I can say “the Iraq war build-up” and people know exactly what I mean speaks to the fact that it wasn’t started by Bush alone, ex cathedra) was a slog through Congress (not to mention the U.N., but they don’t matter, anyway). However, presidents absolutely do have recognized plenary powers over war. That’s howcome they’ve started so many on their own, too many to count. And the court system doesn’t go over the justification for each one before they happen, couldn’t if they wanted to, and in fact shouldn’t be able to in my opinion.

    Now, they do have oversight of various aspects of the War on Terror, as they should. But this immigration issue, specifically, as carried out by Trump based on a clearly-worded law, isn’t the sort of thing that needs to be rationally justified before a judge. Trump has plenary power in this realm, as have other presidents before him.

    What you seem to be asking for is for Trump to justify his policy, on the grounds that, what, an unrestrained Bush made policy errors in Iraq? Well, the political branches get to make those decisions. Judges don’t. (Not that judges aren’t political; let’s call them the *less* political branch for now.) Congress was as much to blame for the Iraq Fiasco as our hubristic president.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    What you seem to be asking for is for Trump to justify his policy, on the grounds that, what, an unrestrained Bush made policy errors in Iraq? Well, the political branches get to make those decisions. Judges don’t. (Not that judges aren’t political; let’s call them the *less* political branch for now.) Congress was as much to blame for the Iraq Fiasco as our hubristic president.
     
    Well, yeah. Of course courts in the US are part of the political process and it seems to work well. When a divided Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of stopping recounts in Florida in Gore vs Bush, there was no armed uprising in Florida, or even a threat of one in a situation that probably would have led to a constitutional crisis in many countries, even developed democracies.

    Look what Bush's "policy errors" led to. Clearly the votes in Congress were a foregone conclusion with most senators and congressmen just going along with the program so they looked patriotic rather than conducting their own independent researches , and practically the sole articulate voice in either party against the invasion was a young American-African politician from Hawaii who I imagine must have subsequently sank without a trace.

    What is wrong with Trump putting six-month block on new arrivals from Iran, Iraq, Syria, and four smaller tribal countries with many internal problems? Nothing much, I should think, if there are clear and present dangers in the current visa policy that need to be ironed out, though I don't see much point in canceling visas that have already been approved.

    I think more detailed checks into mental health might be merited, as persons of Islamic cultural background seem to be prone to running amok and killing strangers when they are mentally ill.

    But the problem is that this could just be the thin end of the wedge leading to a variety of ills, such as increased terrorism against Americans, problems in world oil trading, and so on, followed by escalating presidential actions against the citizens of other countries, so if things turn out badly, there will be new arguments for restraining unilateral Presidential activism without oversight.

  109. @AndrewR
    Your confidence far exceeds your knowledge

    All of those countries, with the obvious exception of Somalia and probably Sudan, had or have their "shit together." And to the extent that they don't, it's overwhelmingly due to US policy.

    If Americans' safety was the primary motive, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be not only on the list but at the top of it.

    Perhaps I should have added: “including, but not limited to…”

    Even if I granted that some of the countries are highly functional, it begs the question, “Why do their citizens demand to come to America?” If another nation were to determine that I was unwelcome or high risk, I would accept the decision. No questions asked, no need to ascertain validity of motive. It’s a matter of respect. Can you get to that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Lol. Accepting arbitrary, baseless dictates of a foreign government is not necessarily something I am prone to do. I don't feel disrespected by Shia Persians who think Trump's travel ban is stupid. And I doubt many of them feel disrespected by me thinking the Iranian government's reciprocal ban is just as dumb.
    , @Dissident

    it begs the question
     
    Didn't you mean raises the question or bears the question?

    http://begthequestion.info/
  110. @Almost Missouri
    I watched some legal academic on TV saying that the President's making judgements about which foreigners to keep out, which explicitly is his duty, is "not okay". She kept using this phrase, "not okay", as though she thought it were an actual legal argument.

    Really it was her way of saying that the law only means whatever she and her ilk think it should mean at this moment.

    "Not okay" is one of the current signatures of the stealth totalitarians.

    Not okay was also a popular phrase among pre-schoolers as they started to learn about fairness and life’s nuances. Some SJWs seem stuck in that environment, so should be sent away with a juice box and some crackers before nap time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Yes, I recall being alarmed by immense popularity of the title, All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten around the time the SJW movement began.

    My reaction was that this told me everything I need to know about the hubris and limited comprehension of the "social justice" movement.
    , @Dissident
    But with none of the redeeming charms of that age group.
  111. @Anonymous
    Moldberg has the background concept of the Catherdral down pat.

    My take, Devine right of Kings is pretty stupid and Freedom is a big winner so a lot of progress is made since.

    However if you reject (King is 100% right always) with (Nothing is right ever,therefore no judgement is valid on anything) you have merely switched to different monster.

    Remember the critical commentary some people have of Hitler was that he was a weak willed moderate and those very people are blindly defended by the Left.

    Sorry anybody going Hitler mode cannot be supported. But remember the quote (there are no enemies on or to my the Left) means the Left's philosophy is the inverse of Devine of Kings, which is the monster of pure nilism

    Moldbug’s stronger argument against democracy, IMO, is the success of the corporate model in business: a CEO rather than a king. Of course, there are corporate governance issues (golden parachutes, boards colluding with CEOs against shareholders on executive pay, etc.), and some companies are better than others in that regard, but no Fortune 100 company is run as a democracy.

    Read More
  112. @AndrewR
    Then why not say that?

    Given the behavior of leftist protestors lately, “protestors” and “rioters” became conflated in my mind. Too late to edit it.

    Read More
  113. Don’t worry, there is good news:

    1. http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/02/09/breaking-guadalupe-garcia-de-rayos-has-been-deported-to-nogales-mexico/

    2. So far, two Mexicans have been jailed for illegally voting.

    3. ICE raids have started.

    The large number of illegals who voted in CA will start to self-deport now that it is clear that we mean business.

    Winning!

    Read More
    • Agree: Dave Pinsen
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    In general, the most effective weapon President Trump has at his disposal is to enforce the existing laws with respect to immigration in a very draconian manner. Illegal immigration means you have committed a crime and are likely to continue to do so.
  114. @Neil Templeton
    Perhaps I should have added: "including, but not limited to..."

    Even if I granted that some of the countries are highly functional, it begs the question, "Why do their citizens demand to come to America?" If another nation were to determine that I was unwelcome or high risk, I would accept the decision. No questions asked, no need to ascertain validity of motive. It's a matter of respect. Can you get to that?

    Lol. Accepting arbitrary, baseless dictates of a foreign government is not necessarily something I am prone to do. I don’t feel disrespected by Shia Persians who think Trump’s travel ban is stupid. And I doubt many of them feel disrespected by me thinking the Iranian government’s reciprocal ban is just as dumb.

    Read More
  115. @27 year old
    >Permanent residents were barred from entry

    Good. We don't need or want permanent residents from any of those countries.

    >the economy was disrupted

    The economy exists to serve us (in theory). The economy is not an end.

    >and families were damaged

    Fewer by an order of magnitude than the number of families who have lost a loved one to immigrant crime I am sure

    Baby needs a nap

    Read More
  116. @Richard A.
    It would be interesting to compare the number of countries we have bombed and total tonnage of bombs dropped under Obama to Russia over the same time period.

    Yes but American bombs are democratic bombs, Russian bombs are Hitler bombs.

    Read More
  117. @The most deplorable one
    Don't worry, there is good news:

    1. http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/02/09/breaking-guadalupe-garcia-de-rayos-has-been-deported-to-nogales-mexico/

    2. So far, two Mexicans have been jailed for illegally voting.

    3. ICE raids have started.

    The large number of illegals who voted in CA will start to self-deport now that it is clear that we mean business.

    Winning!

    In general, the most effective weapon President Trump has at his disposal is to enforce the existing laws with respect to immigration in a very draconian manner. Illegal immigration means you have committed a crime and are likely to continue to do so.

    Read More
  118. @AnotherDad

    Isn’t there something a bit despicable about bombing countries into barbarism and then refusing to take the refugees?
     
    Uh ... obviously no.

    And btw I don't think one can generally bomb a country into "barbarism". Poverty--temporary poverty--perhaps. Barbarism is a state created by barbarous people.

    Finally where are these nations? Germany, Japan, Vietnam those are some countries that got some serious US bombing. (And even their post-war "barbarism" levels seem to have been relatively unaffected. In the case of Germany and Japan perhaps improved.) This idea that US bombing has crushed the lives of most people of Iraq into barbarism, much less the limited attacks on suspected terrorist targets in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen ... laughable. Most people in those nations have never seen or heard a US bomb and don't even have any friends or family who have.

    However, ill advised, US bombing isn't responsible for their barbarism--if that's what there is--in any of these nations. That would be the character and culture or those people and in the case of ISIS atrocities, Wahhabi Islam.

    Furthermore, whatever one nation's political beef with another nation--from minor diplomatic to full scale war--none of it suggests any obligation to take their refugees. In fact, having a serious--"act of war"--conflict with another nation is probably a pretty good 1st order marker of people that you precisely do not want to take into your nation.

    And finally, by default, nations are best served by taking in *no* immigrants and preserving their nation for their own citizens.

    ISIS and the Wahhabists didn’t have a footholds in Iraq and Libya until the U.S. helped destabilize the strongmen that were keeping them in check.

    Read More
  119. @guest
    I think you'll recall part of the build-up to Iraq (the very fact that I can say "the Iraq war build-up" and people know exactly what I mean speaks to the fact that it wasn't started by Bush alone, ex cathedra) was a slog through Congress (not to mention the U.N., but they don't matter, anyway). However, presidents absolutely do have recognized plenary powers over war. That's howcome they've started so many on their own, too many to count. And the court system doesn't go over the justification for each one before they happen, couldn't if they wanted to, and in fact shouldn't be able to in my opinion.

    Now, they do have oversight of various aspects of the War on Terror, as they should. But this immigration issue, specifically, as carried out by Trump based on a clearly-worded law, isn't the sort of thing that needs to be rationally justified before a judge. Trump has plenary power in this realm, as have other presidents before him.

    What you seem to be asking for is for Trump to justify his policy, on the grounds that, what, an unrestrained Bush made policy errors in Iraq? Well, the political branches get to make those decisions. Judges don't. (Not that judges aren't political; let's call them the *less* political branch for now.) Congress was as much to blame for the Iraq Fiasco as our hubristic president.

    What you seem to be asking for is for Trump to justify his policy, on the grounds that, what, an unrestrained Bush made policy errors in Iraq? Well, the political branches get to make those decisions. Judges don’t. (Not that judges aren’t political; let’s call them the *less* political branch for now.) Congress was as much to blame for the Iraq Fiasco as our hubristic president.

    Well, yeah. Of course courts in the US are part of the political process and it seems to work well. When a divided Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of stopping recounts in Florida in Gore vs Bush, there was no armed uprising in Florida, or even a threat of one in a situation that probably would have led to a constitutional crisis in many countries, even developed democracies.

    Look what Bush’s “policy errors” led to. Clearly the votes in Congress were a foregone conclusion with most senators and congressmen just going along with the program so they looked patriotic rather than conducting their own independent researches , and practically the sole articulate voice in either party against the invasion was a young American-African politician from Hawaii who I imagine must have subsequently sank without a trace.

    What is wrong with Trump putting six-month block on new arrivals from Iran, Iraq, Syria, and four smaller tribal countries with many internal problems? Nothing much, I should think, if there are clear and present dangers in the current visa policy that need to be ironed out, though I don’t see much point in canceling visas that have already been approved.

    I think more detailed checks into mental health might be merited, as persons of Islamic cultural background seem to be prone to running amok and killing strangers when they are mentally ill.

    But the problem is that this could just be the thin end of the wedge leading to a variety of ills, such as increased terrorism against Americans, problems in world oil trading, and so on, followed by escalating presidential actions against the citizens of other countries, so if things turn out badly, there will be new arguments for restraining unilateral Presidential activism without oversight.

    Read More
  120. @The most deplorable one
    Did the respected judges on the 9th circuit realize that if there is a Muslim Terrorist attack in the US from today on, they own it?

    However, I think it is already working in Trump's favor. More ordinary Americans now believe that the crazy 9th circuit has put their lives in danger ...

    Also, I wonder if Americans have thought what Muslim attitudes to dogs mean for Americans?

    All those people who work so hard to save the beagles or whatever might all of a sudden find that their efforts were for naught.

    Also, I wonder if Americans have thought what Muslim attitudes to dogs mean for Americans?

    Couldn’t one ask the same question with regard to Muslim attitudes toward women and homosexuals?

    Read More
  121. @Dissident

    Also, I wonder if Americans have thought what Muslim attitudes to dogs mean for Americans?
     
    Couldn't one ask the same question with regard to Muslim attitudes toward women and homosexuals?

    But Americans really like dogs.

    Read More
  122. @Ivy
    Not okay was also a popular phrase among pre-schoolers as they started to learn about fairness and life's nuances. Some SJWs seem stuck in that environment, so should be sent away with a juice box and some crackers before nap time.

    Yes, I recall being alarmed by immense popularity of the title, All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten around the time the SJW movement began.

    My reaction was that this told me everything I need to know about the hubris and limited comprehension of the “social justice” movement.

    Read More
  123. Article 2, section 3, says Congress can remove immigration from federal courts jurisdiction.

    Spread the word.

    Read More
  124. @Neil Templeton
    Perhaps I should have added: "including, but not limited to..."

    Even if I granted that some of the countries are highly functional, it begs the question, "Why do their citizens demand to come to America?" If another nation were to determine that I was unwelcome or high risk, I would accept the decision. No questions asked, no need to ascertain validity of motive. It's a matter of respect. Can you get to that?

    it begs the question

    Didn’t you mean raises the question or bears the question?

    http://begthequestion.info/

    Read More
  125. @Ivy
    Not okay was also a popular phrase among pre-schoolers as they started to learn about fairness and life's nuances. Some SJWs seem stuck in that environment, so should be sent away with a juice box and some crackers before nap time.

    But with none of the redeeming charms of that age group.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.