Tuesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, January 31. 2017

Afraid Government Will Ruin Your Life? Reduce Their Power.

Many Americans have an adolescent attitude towards gummint. They want stuff from it, but can feel defiant and don't want to be told what to do.

Barcelona Seeks to Limit Number of Tourists With New Law'

Initial Impressions: India and Mumbai

Why Bad Guys Win at Work

First Buckingham Palace, now Windsor Castle: Time-honoured tradition of Changing the Guard is AXED amid fears of a Nice-style terrorist attack

Maybe time for some extreme vetting

Trump v. the Border-less Left: For progressives, the universe of victims is infinite.

Microaggressions, Macro Debate

Why the Left hates tolerance - On the shallowness of left-wing “inclusivity.”

An American Leader
Attempting to Make Medicine Cheaper and Embattle Multinationals? If It's
a Not a Democrat, Then Coverage Must Be Unfavorable

FLASHBACK: Chuck Schumer in 2015: “REFUGEE PAUSE MAY BE NECESSARY!”

Flashback 2006: Senators Clinton & Obama Vote For Secure Fence Act, Bush Signs Bill

FLASHBACK: Democrats Tried To Block Thousands Of Vietnam War Refugees, Including Orphans

Diaz-Balart: Where was the outrage when Obama blocked Cubans?

Trump fires acting AG after Justice Department staff told not to defend refugee order

New Rasmussen Poll Reveals Silent Majority Approves Of Immigration Ban

Trump signs “one-in, two-out” EO to reduce federal regulations

Millions Of Lost American Jobs Show The High Cost Of Unfettered Free Trade

Trump's team gets ready for Supreme Court fight

Saul Alinsky in the White House...Still?

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:20 | Comments (64) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

RE Trump fires acting AG after Justice Department staff told not to defend refugee order

QUOTE:

Late Monday night, Schumer took to the Senate floor, where he called Yates a "profile in courage."

bullshit. she served at the pleasure of the president, who holds all executive authority under the Constitution. if she could not or would not do her job for personal reasons, her only honorable option was to resign, not obstruct. her mindset is clearly a product of the osama administration, which picked and chose which laws to defy.

#1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 09:19 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: she served at the pleasure of the president

Sure. So did Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus.

"Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibilty to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper?"

#1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 09:42 (Reply)

No one suggested she should refrain from stating her legal analysis--not that she offered one in this case; she simply refused to obey an order she disagreed with as a matter of public policy. But, having failed to persuade the President to agree with her, her only honorable course was to resign. Trump was absolutely correct to fire her, and only an idiot could have imagined he wouldn't.

She served at the pleasure of a man who served at the pleasure of the voters. Her position was not some kind of property right. It's time political appointees figured this out.

#1.1.1 Texan99 on 2017-01-31 09:49 (Reply)

Texan99: she simply refused to obey an order she disagreed with as a matter of public policy

Was she ordered to defend the executive action?

#1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 10:01 (Reply)

that's her job. parsing words makes you look even more like a lying hack.

#1.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 10:07 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: that's her job.

In the U.S. system, the Attorney General exercises independent discretion from the President on legal matters.

#1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 10:28 (Reply)

Just imagine how the media would have spun this if it were a Bush holdover who wouldn't follow Obama's radically-different directives. The media would be calling the firing a wonderful progressive step toward a new governmental paradise of hope and change.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Dangerous Dean on 2017-01-31 12:16 (Reply)

evasion noted, tool.

whatever "exercising independent discretion" means, it doesn't mean "actively defy the president." whatever legal citations you might find, they're not what you think they mean. directly defying an order is not exercising independent discretion.

what is the constitutional basis of the AG's authority?

stop this endless lying and spinning.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 12:40 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: whatever "exercising independent discretion" means, it doesn't mean "actively defy the president."

It means her responsibility is to the law and the constitution. Nor, as far as is known, did she refuse a direct order from the President. Rather, she said she would not defend the executive action, and then she was fired. Note that the Attorney General is not the President's attorney.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 16:25 (Reply)

the EO is presumptively lawful under the constitution

she has one job, enforce the law and one option if she doesn't, quit. her job is not to determine that the law is unconstitutional and certainly not to tell the USAs not to enforce it. what part of this do you not understand?

announcing that she's going to refuse to do her duties and instructing those under her supervision is is defiance of duly constituted authority. the more you wriggle around this the stupider you appear to be, and that's saying a lot because, kid, you look pretty ignorant now.

what is the source of the AG's authority? why won't you answer that question?

this question is going to follow you around until you respond like an adult. you've gone far, far to long around here evading challenges.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 16:58 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: the EO is presumptively lawful under the constitution

Why would it be "presumptively" so?

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: she has one job, enforce the law and one option if she doesn't, quit.

Apparently she had another option, which was to stay in her job and say she wouldn't defend an executive action she considered to be of questionable legality.

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: her job is not to determine that the law is unconstitutional

Of course it's part of her job. She was Acting Attorney General.

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: and certainly not to tell the USAs not to enforce it.

Her order had nothing to do with enforcement, but with whether they would defend it in court.

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: what is the source of the AG's authority?

Asked and answered several times.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 17:08 (Reply)

its presumptive for orders like this because the USSC says so, and if you don't know why and in what contexts, I'm not going to explain this to you.

you don't understand basic constitutional law, you don't understand what the AG's job is, you don't understand the difference between interpreting the law, which is not her job, and enforcing it, which is. apparently you don't have a clue how chains of command work in any context from McDonald's to the Executive office.

you're gut hooked and exposing your ignorance the more you try to defend her.

this isn't like your weather fetish where you can make up shit, cite out of date or false stats. there's a reason you're schooled every day here.

come to these debates armed or stop the bullshit preaching.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 17:19 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: its presumptive for orders like this because the USSC says so

Where does the Supreme Court say that executive orders are presumptively constitutional? Are you confusing presumption with deference?

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 18:56 (Reply)

its over, loser. you don't know enough to hold a conversation on this.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 19:36 (Reply)

learning new words isn't going to help you.

you're lucky I'm a fair and honest debater, I could run you in circles if I acted the way you do with your weather fetish.

either learn the legal terminology or stay away.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 19:49 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: you don't understand what the AG's job is

We do know that when she goes into court to argue the legality of the executive order that she has to believe that the executive order is lawful. Otherwise, she would be in violation of her oath of office.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 19:02 (Reply)

as I said in another thread, face wash, loser.

you stopped trying to make sense hours ago. no one buys your blather or lame excuses. you make up legal concepts the way you use your fake weather reports.

she acted like an osama tool.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 19:43 (Reply)

the secretary resigns instead of she cannot do her job. she was actively obstructing the president which is different.

are you stupid or just a partisan hack? obviously, both.

the has the right to her feelings and the right to express them to her boss, but do you actually think the secretary holds some independent source of authority?

rather than evade the question, like we all know you always do, explain this authority.

#1.1.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 09:52 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: the secretary resigns instead of she cannot do her job

Trump was well within his power to fire Yates.

Yates said "No" to defending an executive order that she wasn't convinced was lawful — exactly as she promised she would to Sen. Sessions.

#1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 09:59 (Reply)

stop lying. she ordered her subordinates not to obey lawful orders from her superior.

that's different from declining to do her job and resigning, you dishonest hack.

so, the answer to question you evaded is, "no, yates didn't have any authority to order that the EO not be defended."

amirite?

#1.1.2.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 10:05 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: she ordered her subordinates not to obey lawful orders from her superior

No. She ordered her subordinates not to defend the executive order in court.

#1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 10:29 (Reply)

you are clueless and a liar.

"don't defend" in an adversarial system means you lose. I know you have lots of experience with losing.

a libtarded constitutional challenge to an EO that the government won't defend results in a default judgment.

so, again, what is the constitutional basis of her authority?

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 12:44 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: "a libtarded constitutional challenge to an EO that the government won't defend results in a default judgment.

The government could have requested the judge appoint an independent attorney. The President could have ordered her to defend the executive action, presumably leading to her resignation. They went a different way.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 16:28 (Reply)

she grandstanded for her own political benefit and was fired.

#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 17:01 (Reply)

What part did she explain was "unlawful", and statutes did she point to?
It seems more like a case of "I don't like it" than being unlawful.

What was her conclusion based on?

#1.1.2.1.2 Dale on 2017-01-31 10:08 (Reply)

Dale: What part did she explain was "unlawful", and statutes did she point to?

She didn't. However, many legal scholars believe the executive order is not constitutional, and may be in violation of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act.

#1.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 10:31 (Reply)

It is not in violation. 100% legal. Move on from this topic, Zach, you are missing out on complaining about much more important topics...

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

#1.1.2.1.2.1.1 MissT on 2017-01-31 12:16 (Reply)

MissT: Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states ...

It also states that no person shall be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”

#1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 16:14 (Reply)

MissT, I urge you not to engage zachs at this level. the question isn't whether the EO was or was not constitutional, zachs can crib reasons off a thousand libtarded websites explaining why we desperately need all of those refugees. he'll be wrong, and their arguments misleading, that's guaranteed, and he'll happily misrepresent or fail to explain case rulings. the issue of the EO's lawfulness will be decided elsewhere.

zach's purpose -- vis a vis the post topic -- is to mislead.

he's trying to deflect the fact that an osama shill holdover acted outside her authority and paid the price by being fired, as well as hiding the fact that she did this for personal gain. every legal argument he's made on this point is wrong.

this is a grade-school level debate trick: control the parameters of the debate and you control the outcome.

don't fall for it.

#1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 17:33 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: the question isn't whether the EO was or was not constitutional

Actually, that is the question. Several federal judges have already said that some provisions of the executive order are likely unconstitutional.

#1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 18:58 (Reply)

what is the source of the AG's authority?

the question you're afraid to answer.

#1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 19:45 (Reply)

As already stated, the position of Attorney General is defined by statute {Judiciary Act of 1789}.

#1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-01 09:23 (Reply)

what is the constitutional basis for an an attorney general's authority?

its not "how she feels", or "what scholars say", or what the DNC wants.

going to to answer this question, tool?

#1.1.2.1.2.1.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 12:47 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: what is the constitutional basis for an an attorney general's authority?

Asked and answered. Federal judges have already found that the executive order likely violated the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It is also a violation of the anti-discrimination clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Her specific authority came from being Acting Attorney General, which has an obligation to not defend unlawful government acts.

#1.1.2.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 16:22 (Reply)

evasive, and wrong.

the AG has no independent authority other than what derives directly from the President. the President issued an order that is constitutionally presumed lawful and she defied him in defending it, for her personal political reasons.

determining whether the EOs are lawful or not is the job of the judiciary, not a holdover from the osama administration.

this stuff is so elemental that I know you're misrepresenting the facts and law on purpose. no one can be honestly this wrong.

#1.1.2.1.2.1.2.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 17:08 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: the AG has no independent authority other than what derives directly from the President.

The position of Attorney General is defined by statute, and subject to Senate confirmation. While the Attorney General reports to the President, her sworn duty is to the Constitution.

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: determining whether the EOs are lawful or not is the job of the judiciary

Clearly if the Attorney General is to defend an executive action in court, they must believe the executive action is lawful, or they would be derelict in their duty. Indeed, they must form such an opinion in order to make the argument in court. It's intrinsic to the job.

"Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibilty to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper?"

#1.1.2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 17:13 (Reply)

She either does her job or she resigns. but like a good demoncrap hack, she grandstanded. and like a good shill, you're her apologist.

#1.1.2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 17:23 (Reply)

what legal scholars believe is totally irrelevant to the AG's duties.

what is the source of the AG's authority?

#1.1.2.1.2.1.3 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 17:10 (Reply)

so what's your point? she was wrong then and she's wrong now. and you're still evading the challenge that's been posed to you by everyone who had commented:

what's the independent source of authority that allowed Yates to actively defy Trump's EO because of what she "feels"?

don't run away, hack.

#1.1.2.1.3 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 10:14 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: what's the independent source of authority that allowed Yates to actively defy Trump's EO

She didn't defy the executive order. She refused to defend it in court.

#1.1.2.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 10:33 (Reply)

what is the AG's constitutional authority to refuse to defend a law in court?

stop prevaricating, liar, and answer the question or admit the obvious: there isn't any.

what is the source of the AG's authority?

#1.1.2.1.3.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 14:22 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: what is the AG's constitutional authority to refuse to defend a law in court?

The Attorney General is required to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." As she made clear in her Senate testimony, she would say no to the President when warranted. She thought it was warranted.

#1.1.2.1.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 16:53 (Reply)

hey tool, instructing people in the DOJ not to enforce the law goes beyond saying "no".

do you get any of that?

let me try again.

instructing people in the DOJ not to enforce the law goes beyond saying "no".

how about this:

telling people in the DOJ not to enforce the law causes global warming

#1.1.2.1.3.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 17:46 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: instructing people in the DOJ not to enforce the law goes beyond saying "no".

She instructed attorneys to not defend the executive order in court because of the questionable lawfulness of some of its provisions.

#1.1.2.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 19:00 (Reply)

You are wrong on this, Zach. DOJ Office of Legal Counsel stated that the travel ban was entirely constitutional. It is the AG's duty to uphold the Constitutions and all laws. She would not do it. Therefore, she was in breach of her duties under the law. This was not an 'I don't agree with the President' moment, it was in clear defiance of the law.

The President has the power to ban travel from any country at any time. He also has the power to stop accepting immigrants for any reason at any time. Look it up. The former AG was in the wrong. Deserved to be fired.

#1.1.2.1.4 MissT on 2017-01-31 12:11 (Reply)

MissT: DOJ Office of Legal Counsel stated that the travel ban was entirely constitutional.

Meanwhile, several federal judges have found that at least some provisions were likely unconstitutional.

#1.1.2.1.4.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 17:01 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Sure. So did Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus.

The cargo cult left the following message: "Good work, Zach!".

#1.1.3 Bill Carson on 2017-01-31 10:28 (Reply)

RE Changing the Guard is AXED

why not give the Guard bullets? they're supposed to be a guard.

#2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 09:23 (Reply)

Re: India

On making her first arrival in a 3rd world country DD called from the hotel limo which had picked her up at the airport in Delhi. She called to say she had arrived safely. The call went something like this: "Hi mom, yeah I am here. No problem with the limo. Boy this place is amazing, cows, poor girls wearing beautiful silk dresses--(silence) OMG-- MOM! That elephant just S*#&T in front of our car--it was on my side of the car. Mom why can't they just get organized and clean this place up?" Gotta love her--

#3 apple pie on 2017-01-31 09:24 (Reply)

First step to becoming worldly. In this case, it didn't take long.

#3.1 BillH on 2017-01-31 10:30 (Reply)

She lives in the Seattle area and reports back frequently on the increasing number of Indian peoples living in that area. She was raised to be a caring realist. She spent 10 days there during the Mumbai massacre being shuttled around by top security officials. It was a real learning experience for her. She came home very, very grateful for what she inherited. She does not want to see everyone locked out--"only the bad guys". She also wants to see Microsoft hire more young kids who grew up in America--doesn't care what color as long as they are born here! She comes from the artsy side of the world so India was a real awakening for her! The fabric, the color, the filth--the elephants pooping on limos! :-) That's why I gave her my ticket in the first place! ;-) Mom sometimes knows best!

#3.1.1 apple pie on 2017-01-31 19:39 (Reply)

QUOTE:

It's kinda hard to feel sorry for people who think government should have virtually unlimited power ...

Straw man.

#4 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 09:35 (Reply)

Not really. The left did not balk at a single thing that went on during Obama's presidency. Just taking one example, do you think there would be any outrage if during a Republican administration, the IRS delayed processing of tax exempt applications of leftist groups (in many cases for years), then stonewalled a Democratic investigation - failing to even look for backup tapes of emails that were subpoenaed finding out later they were erased?

#4.1 mudbug on 2017-01-31 10:11 (Reply)

mudbug: The left did not balk at a single thing that went on during Obama's presidency

Huh? Drone attacks. Multiple wars. Surveillance. Free trade. Lack of single-payer healthcare. Technocratic centrism. Et cetera, et cetera.

The political left isn't a monolith, so not every leftist objected to everything on the list, but all on the list were opposed by significant numbers of people on the left.

mudbug: Just taking one example, do you think there would be any outrage if during a Republican administration, the IRS delayed processing of tax exempt applications of leftist groups (in many cases for years), then stonewalled a Democratic investigation

Of course there would, just as there was concern about the converse. There were legitimate reasons why some right-leaning groups were held up by the IRS, but there is little remaining trust between the parties, so it doesn't matter what the facts might have been. Did you know that millions of emails were lost from the Bush White House that were on private servers?

Please note the difference between concern and outrage. How many investigations of Benghazi were there, and what did they determine that wasn't already known after the first investigation? It was strictly political. And while Clinton's email server was the never-ending investigation (it must be treason!), Trump is this very day using an unsecured Android for tweeting, while his staff is using private emails for government business.

#4.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 10:45 (Reply)

There were some things the left disapproved of, but they never made much of a fuss over them to the extent that lefties could claim that the Obama administration was scandal free. Democratic Senators and Congresscritters routinely complained about every investigation lead by Republicans and never seemed to be bothered by the destruction of evidence, not answering subpoenas, or outright lying by administration officials during hearings.

#4.1.1.1 mudbug on 2017-01-31 10:55 (Reply)

mudbug: There were some things the left disapproved of, but they never made much of a fuss over them to the extent that lefties could claim that the Obama administration was scandal free.

You seem to be conflating the political left with the Democratic Party, as you have in the past.

mudbug: Democratic Senators and Congresscritters routinely complained about every investigation lead by Republicans and never seemed to be bothered by the destruction of evidence, not answering subpoenas, or outright lying by administration officials during hearings.

The never-ending investigations by Republicans were absurd, though scorched Earth tactics persist because they can be effective. Imagine, the head-birther conspiracy theorist is now the President.

#4.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 11:02 (Reply)

yeah. it is. enjoy the face wash, loser.

#4.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 10:19 (Reply)

QUOTE:

FLASHBACK: Chuck Schumer in 2015: “REFUGEE PAUSE MAY BE NECESSARY!”

FLASHBACK: Chuck Schumer in 2015: Sen. Chuck Schumer said Thursday that he is no longer open to a so-called pause in the flow of Syrian refugees into the United States ... "We had a very good briefing,” the New York Democrat told reporters Thursday. “What they showed us is this: There are about 2,000 refugees who have come here from Syria over the last four years. None have been arrested or deported for terrorism. None.”

#5 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 09:54 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Diaz-Balart: Where was the outrage when Obama blocked Cubans?

Obama didn't block Cubans, but changed the process to be the same as for other refugees and immigrants.

#6 Zachriel on 2017-01-31 10:02 (Reply)

are you going to continue to dodge questions about the source of Yate's authority to defy Trump's EO?

it doesn't exist, but I'm wondering if you're capable of admitting it.

for once, don't run away from a debate.

#6.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-01-31 10:10 (Reply)

The acting AG was a land mine placed their by Obama in one of his intentional anti-American acts. Schumer has evolved over the years into a far left and finally an anti-American congressmen, This was not accidental it is the direction of the entire Democrat party. It is all part of the silent coup that the Democrats have planned since the 60's. Schumer shed a tear for terrorists yesterday but did he shed a tear on 9/11? When some of these "refugees" commit terrorist acts in the future will he shed a tear or try to use it to further his political agenda? Wake up America, the Democrats have been captured by the Marxist/Leninist far left and no longer represent you. These "spontaneous" demonstrations are funded and organized by the far left. They are violent and anti-American and are the far left's neo brown shirts. This is going to get nasty and the far left fully intends for it to get nasty.

#7 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-31 10:22 (Reply)

I think Schumer is just playing politics as usual. He sees Dem. possibilities in all these rowdy demonstrations for 2018 and 2020, maybe harness them into a political vehicle by saying the right things, à la Trump in 2016. What he misses, in screenshot after indistinguishable screenshot, is it's a generic mass of white, disheveled, rabid females, sprinkled with a few beta-looking males and very few if any minorities, which makes for a rickety political vehicle at best. It's fairly obvious what we're looking at - still seething HRC voters.

#7.1 BillH on 2017-01-31 12:32 (Reply)

This is a repost yesterday?

What can we do at the state level to stop children in public school grades K-12 from being forced to march in public demonstrations? Can we craft a state law that forbids teachers from forcing their students to attend and participate in public demonstrations? Thank you for your thoughts

#8 faculty wife on 2017-01-31 12:12 (Reply)

Why must we always involve the government. As a parent I would use my authority and pull my child from any forced demonstations. My childrens teachers would then be.put on notice. Have we all gone insane! We might as well hand them over at birth.

#9 pocono pam on 2017-02-01 01:49 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, January 31. 2017

Tuesday morning links