It was the 9th Circuit, so the outcome was a foregone conclusion. I’m too irritated to blog, because this is the kind of crap “so-called judges,” who are interested in activism not law, pull. But if you have something you’d like to say, here’s your spot.
If my internet reading had a chyron, of the type you see on cable news, under every article I read you would see the words “Democrat Implosion,” along with headlines about walking vaginas, feminists advocating sharia, Senators weeping over terrorists, and other insanity from Progressives who are no longer on the verge of a nervous breakdown because they have crossed the verge and taken a dive into the abyss of insanity. Most of the links in this round-up illustrate my point.
The cognitive dissonance about Trump’s alleged Hitlerism. Throughout the election cycle, Scott Adams pointed out the two different realities in which people were functioning: The first, the winning one, saw Donald Trump as a charismatic showman who has the skills to return America to being a constitutionally guided country — a state of things that is the complete opposite of the soft administrative and judicial tyranny under which we’ve been laboring for too long. The second, the losing side, saw Trump as Hitler. I’ve even got a nice satirical cartoon to make that point:
What worries Adams is that, if people refuse to abandon a reality that they’ve constructed when the real world intrudes in stark opposition to their mental paradigm, they can go a bit nuts:
I’m talking about ordinary people doing ordinary things to turn Trump into an actual Hitler. For example, if protesters start getting violent, you could expect forceful reactions eventually. And that makes Trump look more like Hitler. I can think of dozens of ways the protesters could cause the thing they are trying to prevent. In other words, they can wish it into reality even though it is the very thing they are protesting.
In the 3rd dimension of persuasion, the protesters need to be proven right, and they will do whatever it takes to make that happen. So you might see the protesters inadvertently create the police state they fear.
If you are looking for the tells that this dangerous situation is developing, notice how excited/happy the Trump critics seem to be – while angry at the same time – that Trump’s immigration ban fits their belief system. If you see people who are simply afraid of Trump, they are probably harmless. But the people who are excited about any Hitler-analogy-behavior by Trump might be leading the country to a police state without knowing it.
If you’re looking for concrete examples of what Adams rightly characterizes as lunacy from the anti-Trump crowd, look no further than this hysterical denunciation of Gorsuch, which has nothing to do with Gorsuch himself and everything to do with blocking Trump:
It’s time for the sweet resistance we’re seeing in the streets to start showing up in the U.S. Senate.
Democrats in the chamber have the votes to hold up exactly one major appointment from President Trump without any Republican help. And they should fight Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court with every vote they’ve got — even if it means ending the ability to filibuster any high court nominations in the future.
They have no other choice.
This is an appointment by the biggest popular vote loser of the modern era to fill a stolen seat. Pretending this is just Senate business as usual would pat the GOP on the head for pulling off the heist of the century, and it would give Trump a thumbs up for his first-week “shock and awe” campaign of executive orders designed to roll back immigration, the Affordable Care Act and voting rights.
And yes, it all has to do with that “popular vote” rubric, as if it mattered. Progressives are deaf to the fact that, if the Constitution called for a popular vote, Trump would have campaigned differently and probably won that campaign too, simply by getting more people out to vote across America. Lefties, on the other hand, had already maxed out their Blue voter turnout in their Blue urban enclaves. Just remember, this is what the election map looked like:
Because the media is working overtime to out-and-out lie, or just subtly misrepresent, Trump’s immigration stay, ordinary people are having to do the media’s job. That’s what my friend John did, and he came up with something simple, straightforward, and singularly illuminating:
- Yes, the MSM is dishonest BUT it’s more what they’re “conveniently” leaving out of the conversation that’s important.
- All of Europe continues to have severe issues with Muslim’s unwillingness to assimilate. They would love to put the “genie back in the bottle” and start anew. They cannot.
- We’ve had our own issues (9/11, Ft Hood, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, The Orlando Nightclub, The Ft Lauderdale Airport, etc). And according to the Pew Research Center… 7% of Muslims in America say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances. That means that 240,000 Muslims in America think suicide bombings MAY be OK .
- Trump’s 120 day moratorium is a timeout to figure out how we can avoid the USA becoming Europe and how he can keep Americans safe. (that includes the majority of American Muslims).
- I’m not sure it’s the “perfect solution”. I’m not even sure there is a “perfect solution”. But, there is unquestionably a SERIOUS issue that needs to be addressed.
I first published this post before Trump’s weekend executive order imposing a temporary immigration ban on nations — coincidentally Muslim nations — that import terrorism to give America time to come up with an optimal vetting system. At the time, it was simply my comment about what I saw as a good inaugural speech. I now think my post is even more pertinent. Please read it and tell me what you think.
I liked Trump’s pithy, punchy inaugural speech. I didn’t see anything fascist in his claim that it’s time for America to repair herself before dashing out to be the world’s savior. That is, I see nothing peculiar in an American president making America’s economic health and national security — matters that affect all citizens regardless of race, color, creed, sex, or sexual orientation — his top priorities.
It wasn’t until I read Virgil’s analysis of the Trump inaugural speech, though, that I realized why Trump made so much sense to me. Virgil describes the speech’s core this way:
Virgil believes that Trump’s speech marks a watershed in American history. That is, in recent decades, it had been possible for a president to natter on about America’s duties to the world as a whole, and yet it was seen as gauche to talk about America’s duties to itself, and to her people. But that all changed today. It was Trump who spoke of “carnage” in our cities (and what other word could one use to describe, for example, the nearly 800 murders in Chicago last year, part of an overall 14 percent rise?). It was Trump who spoke also of “rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation.”
“America first,” therefore, isn’t about white supremacy or world domination. Instead, it’s the simple recognition that the Leftist belief that America’s past sins have been so bad that she must repair the world before she can care for herself and her citizens is a recipe for disaster, both at home and abroad. And that’s where those in-flight safety videos come in.
The Progressives on my real-me Facebook feed are having a collective mental collapse in response to President Trump’s new immigration order. Typically, their behavior is predicated, not upon actual facts, but upon media propaganda and their own factual and historic ignorance. This post will rebut the worst, most misleading of these arguments, which is the claim Jews and all other decent people must accept unlimited refugees from Muslim countries because Hitler.
My Facebook feed is being inundated with the fallacy holding that, unless we allow unlimited immigration from those seven terrorist-fomenting Muslim countries, we’re no better than America in the late 1930s, when it refused to allow in Jewish refugees, most of whom perished in the Holocaust.
Most especially, because I am a Jew, the Progressives insist I should be on the front-line in the war against the immigration order, screaming “Stop! Don’t take any of these people in the country.” This is a morally evil argument predicated upon ignorance and misrepresentation.
Before I rebut the argument, here’s a sampling of the “reductio ad Hitlerlum” garbage littering my Facebook feed in the wake of Trump’s immigration order. Let’s start with Dr. Seuss, shall we?
Principled journalism versus American journalism. Conservatives have been understandably charmed by the meltdown that Kurt Eichenwald, a Newsweak reporter suffered, first on Tucker Carlson’s show and then again after Carlson’s show in a series of tweets. Eichenwald scurried around like a maddened trapped rat, trying desperately to avoid Carlson’s direct question about Eichenwald’s unfounded, slanderous tweet claiming Trump checked into a mental hospital. Eichenwald ended the embarrassing debacle by blaming a tweet with a flashing GIF for his having a seizure and then announcing that he was taking time off from work on that account.
Eichenwald could have handled the whole thing differently. He could have followed this Spanish reporter who, upon learning that he’d relied on a poor source and made a false statement, took full responsibility for his failure and then voluntarily quit his job. In America, being a member of the mainstream media means that no apology is expected, unless it’s a non-apology apology, after which you get a better job or get your fake news turned into a movie.
Obama and that Russian hack. Okay, first off, I don’t believe in any Russian hack. I mean, we know that Russia and a lot of other nations spend a great deal of time probing America’s cyber weaknesses. The reality here, though, is that Russia did not mess with voting machines, or state or federal databases.
What someone did (either Russia or, more likely, an angry Bernie supporter) was send a phishing email to John Podesta, who took the bait and exposed his and the DNC’s actual emails to the eyes of the world. What the world saw was ugly. It wasn’t fake. It was the real Democrats being stupid, racist, and manipulative.
When it comes to real Russian hacking (the probing into state secrets, etc.), Obama has done nothing in eight years either to strengthen our cyber weaknesses or, for that matter, to harden America’s electric grid against an EMP attack. He’s done nothing at all but bring down America’s economy, America’s national security, and America’s standing in the world. John Podhortez has knocked one out of the park with this description of an Obama utterly passive in the face of every foreign threat or initiative.
Lately, the only thing that seems to induce some sort of activity in Obama is trying to make life more difficult for Trump by filling administrative positions that, traditionally, are left for the incoming president to fill. Perhaps Obama isn’t aware that Trump has no problem saying “You’re fired.”
One of the categories I long ago set up for articles I’m saving to include in a round-up was called “politics as usual.” I’ve since changed it to “there’s nothing usual about politics.” The fusion of the Trump presidency, the collective Progressive mental breakdown, and the culture wars means that just about everything I read lately comes as a surprise. I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten no Christmas cards yet this year (a variation from the norm) because my Progressive friends are too depressed. They’re feeling like that gay couple in LA that canceled their celebratory Christmas party.
I am feeling celebratory — for the first time in eight years. I feel like the Americans at Yorktown when the British surrendered in 1781, as their band played The World Turned Upside Down. There’s still a lot of fighting to be done, as the links below show, but we’re gaining traction.
No, you don’t get to change the rules after you lose the game. The Lefties are desperately trying to undo the Electoral College (or, indeed, to do anything else they can think of to undermine a fair election the outcome of which they dislike). What Lefties don’t understand is that, had there been no Electoral College, Trump would simply have run a different campaign, getting more votes out in red states. What Lefties do understand is that the Electoral College stands in the way of the entire United States becoming a colony of California, which Michael Barone explains marches to the beat of a different drummer:
[F]or the first time in the nation’s history the most populous state was a political outlier, voting at one extreme in the national political spectrum.
The trend is recent — and clear. California was 14 points more Democratic than the nation this year, versus 10 points in 2012, 9 points in 2008, 6 points in 2004 and 2000. In the nine elections before that and after California passed New York to become the most populous state in 1963, the average of California’s Democratic and Republican percentages was never more than 5 points off the national figures. In four of the five elections between 1964 and 1980 (the exception was the McGovern year, 1972) it actually voted more Republican than the nation as a whole.
The case against abolition is one suggested by the Framers’ fears that voters in one large but highly atypical state could impose their will on a contrary-minded nation. That largest state in 1787 was Virginia, home of four of the first five presidents. New York and California, by remaining closely in line with national opinion up through 1996, made the issue moot.
California’s 21st century veer to the left makes it a live issue again. In a popular vote system, the voters of this geographically distant and culturally distinct state, whose contempt for heartland Christians resembles imperial London’s disdain for the “lesser breeds” it governed, could impose something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation. Sounds exactly like what the Framers strove to prevent.
Barone’s is an interesting, but somewhat abstract, analysis. A look at how the votes played out in real time in New York helps explain in concrete terms how doing away with the Electoral College means that the United States will be governed by the hard-Left coastal cities, plus Chicago:
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
And California’s arrogance to the contrary, while it would probably be fine for America if California left (as many are now threatening to do), it’s doubtful whether it would be good for California.
In the wake of Abdul Razak Ali Ratan’s ISIS-inspired attack at OSU, David French’s addresses the vexing issue of Muslim refugees in America. He provides substantive data showing that most are decent people, but the bad ones are really, really, bad, and very dangerous:
The Heritage Foundation has maintained a comprehensive database of terror plots since 9/11, a database that includes foiled attacks. The number of Muslim immigrants involved is truly sobering. For every successful attack, there are multiple unsuccessful plots, including attacks that could have cost hundreds of American lives.
When we survey the American experience since 9/11, two undeniable truths emerge, and it’s past time that we grapple head-on with them. First, the vast majority of Muslim immigrants — no matter their country of origin — are not terrorists. They won’t attack anyone, they won’t participate in terrorist plots, and they abhor terrorism. Some even provide invaluable information in the fight against jihad. That’s the good news.
The bad news is the second truth: Some Muslim immigrants (or their children) will either attempt to commit mass murder or will actually succeed in killing and wounding Americans by the dozens. All groups of immigrants contain some number of criminals. But not all groups of immigrants contain meaningful numbers of terrorists. This one does. It’s simply a fact.
Moreover, there isn’t an even geographic distribution of terrorists. We don’t have as many terrorist immigrants from Indonesia, India, or Malaysia as we do from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, or from the conflict zones in the Middle East. It’s much less risky to bring into the country a cardiologist from Jakarta than a refugee from Kandahar.
French’s proposal for dealing with this ugly reality is to “maintain and expand” safe zones in the Middle East. Frankly, that sounds like a very expensive undertaking, one that puts American troops at risk of direct conflicts with surrounding hostiles, and a black hole from which America may never emerge. I have a different proposal:
The mayors of twelve major cities have, since the election, announced that they will be “sanctuary cities” for illegal aliens and, in one form or another, refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigration law. This is a direct challenge to our Constitutional system, and one no progressive would tolerate if, say, it were conservatives refusing to comply with homosexual marriage. Actually, the twelve “sanctuary cities” are the tip of the iceberg, as Victor Davis Hanson explained when opining on the nihilism of this “sanctuary” movement some months ago:
There are an estimated 300 or so jurisdictions — entire states, counties, cities, and municipalities — that since the early 1980s have enacted “sanctuary city” laws, forbidding full enforcement of federal immigration law within their jurisdictions. Most of these entities are controlled by Democrats in general and liberals in particular. . . . .
If rule of law means anything, then this cannot be allowed to stand. Unfortunately, while there are some acts that Trump can take unilaterally, his hands are surprisingly tied. Democrats in the Senate, where Republicans do not hold a filibuster proof majority, have repeatedly refused to authorize the withholding of any funds from cities, etc., because of their failure to cooperate on matters of immigration law enforcement.
I have for many years been confused about immigrants who flee a corrupt, poor, violent, and/or despotic Latin American country, only to try to vote the same bad polices into America. Sadly, my perfectly intelligent question doesn’t fall on immigrant ears as I have no contact with recent immigrants. Perhaps this Prager Video, narrated by the dazzling Gloria Alvarez, will make a change:
As I say often enough, I highly approve of immigration, subject to two conditions: One, that the immigrants come here legally; and two, that the immigrants embrace America rather than working to turn America into a carbon copy of the failed or failing state from which the immigrants came.
If I do this post right, you will end up agreeing that there’s a very close relationship between Western immigration policies over the past twenty years and the way in which Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie allegedly have raised their children.
With news of Brangelina’s breakup, the tabloids are rehashing allegations about the decidedly non-traditional way in which they’re raising their six children, three of whom they adopted and three of whom are their biological children. Before I go any further, I don’t think there’s any question but that Brad and Angelina love their children. Love, however, is not always enough and, indeed, love untempered by other virtues can be downright damaging.
Angelina is apparently the lead voice in the household when it comes to parental decisions. Obviously a disciple of Rousseau, she believes that children should run free, untrammeled by adult conventions and expectations. The Daily Mail, as one would expect, has some details:
I never watch the Emmys, and I say that with a great deal of pride. As last night’s anti-Trump exhibition showed, television is no longer about either entertaining or informing the American people; it is, instead, about “progaganda.” That’s not a typo. It’s a great neologism my friend Wolf Howling came up with to address the fact that whether watching their shows, attending their schools, or listening to (or reading) their news, you will be made to embrace the Progressive agenda.
For those who have drunk the Kool-Aid, it’s irrelevant (a) that the Progressive agenda has come close to destroying black America; (b) that it is making America incapable of defending itself against the radical threat of fundamentalist Islam; (c) that it is anti-science insofar as it pretends that the XX and XY chromosome pairing in humans is meaningless or that the planet is melting, all actual evidence to the contrary; (d) that it is aggressively trying to destroy the First Amendment’s promise that people can hold to the core tenets of their faith without government prosecution (except when those tenets tell them to bomb, behead, shoot, or stab others); and (e) that it pushes a vision of Big Government that, when carried to its logical conclusion, invariably ends up with government killing more people than all the individual “haters” or gun “nuts” or “Bible clingers” combined. What matters to the Left is that it feels good about itself. Its intentions are all to help the “little people,” never mind that the effect of those intentions predictably destroys those it aims to help.
This intro brings me to Jill Soloway, celebrated in Hollywood for having made a show about a transgender person who, if I understand correctly, pretends not to have paired XY chromosomes, but insists instead on being treated as a person with XX chromosomes. (I have to admit that I’m always confused about the terminology: what does “transgender man” or “transgender woman” mean? I cannot tell if the sex modifier in those phrases refers to chromosome reality or body dysmorphic wish-fulfillment.)
Solway, rather than accepting her award with a polite thank-you took it upon herself when backstage to let America know how evil those who don’t embrace Progressive thinking really are:
So Jews were otherized in Nazi Germany to gain political power for Hitler, and right now Donald Trump is doing the same thing. He’s otherizing people. He calls women pigs if they don’t look like beauty pageant contestants. He blames Muslim and Mexicans for our problems. He makes fun of disabled people. This is otherizing with a capital O, and has been used in our history before to start and win wars, and he needs to be called out every chance he gets for being one of the most dangerous monsters to ever approach our lifetimes. He’s a complete dangerous monster, and any moment that I have to call Trump out for being an inheritor to Hitler, I will.
Now, much as it pains me to admit it, Solway’s right partially. There is a presidential candidate who is openly “otherizing people,” entirely dismissing their humanity, and making it quite plain that they are so evil that they cannot be saved but are, instead, a blight on the body politic. It’s just that Solway got her candidate wrong: