Wednesday morning links

Like the Children's Crusade for Transparent Backpacks, the practical support for the Migrant's March remains curiously unexplored territory by the journalist profession. So.....1,500 people just decided to start walking north and all showed up, coincidentally at the same time/place? Wow. Was it a virgin sighting, or what?

Logistical coordination for 1,500 people on the march can not be invisible. Who is behind it? Who is manning the phones, paying the bills, who is the generous funder? Thinking, rational people would like to to know.

#1 Aggie on 2018-04-04 08:25 (Reply)

I'd like this to be a watershed moment for sovereign borders and defense of W. Civ.

#1.1 DrTorch on 2018-04-04 08:58 (Reply)

Whose providing food and water? I don't see any chuck wagons following the horde.

#1.2 Jma on 2018-04-04 13:34 (Reply)

"Ban All Semi-Automatic Guns, no civilian needs one"

Isn't that what Hitler said to the Jews?

There are those people who will claim it will never happen here and it is all paranoia and crazy right wing talking points. But think about the FIA court and how the politicians promised to never abuse that power and that there were adequate safeguards. Then realize how easily and quickly the Obama administration misused it and weaponized it against their opponents. No whistle blowers, now MSM exposure, no DOJ investigation. If Hillary had won they would still be doing it and the MSM would still be looking for racism on the right or something.

The events can turn our world on a dime. What seems impossible today can change in a heartbeat tomorrow. If we lose our 2nd amendment rights they will never come back to us. There is a quickening from the left even as they go far left, Marxist socialist left, they seem to be doubling down on taking our 2nd amendment rights. Why???

#2 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-04-04 09:01 (Reply)

What did happen here was the Rodney King riots were non-black owned shops were ransacked by rioters. I read that there were shop owners who protected their shops with their AR-15 and many more who wished they had one.

#2.1 mudbug on 2018-04-04 09:52 (Reply)

This isn't strictly about AR15s, but bear with me. Until recently, the college I work for was not forced to allow me to conceal carry here. About 2 years ago when I still couldn't do it, one of our professors was forced by the administration to meet on campus with a former student who had threatened the professor and his classmates. We were all afraid that the student might come to campus and do something horrible. My supervisor at the time was a vociferous anti-gun type who often argued with me about gun rights. That day, she came into my office and said "I know you can't have a gun here, but today I wish you had one." That is the type of hypocrisy we are up against here.

Yes, Piers Morgan wants to take my semi-automatic weapons. So does Mathew McConaughey and other pretty people. While they have armed guards, I can't afford guards for my family. So I will just pass on this. Thanks.

My guns are no threat to anyone except criminals. That is the most important part of the world for me to deter.

As a sidebar, does any RATIONAL American think that NOW is the time to allow the government to disarm us? I would bet we trust all levels of government less than ever before in our history. If that is true, then why even let them TALK about disarming us?

#2.1.1 Dangerous Dean on 2018-04-04 11:30 (Reply)

I'm not sure why people are so scared of Amazon.
The things which are being said about it were said about the A&P company for years. Yet during the Depression, at a point in time when the A&P had anti-trust legislation brought against it, it was one of the few companies growing and adding employees.
While people raged about what it was doing to mom and pop shops, the reality was it was doing many of them a favor. Most were managed poorly (after all, few people are truly good at business), which is why the A&P was successful - AND the A&P gave the mom & pop former owners jobs which were stable.

Yet, today, the A&P is not what it was. Come to think of it, I'll challenge anyone to give me an example of a large firm which is as dominant today as it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Amazon has competitors, good ones which are also growing, and will not dominate in the manner people think. Google is already showing cracks in its armor, Facebook too. Netflix is no sure thing, and Apple is fighting hard against all of them. Funny that through all of those names you don't see Microsoft, Oracle, Sun or Cisco - all firms who at some point were very dominant (and MSFT, at least, still competes with these companies).

Trump is actually wrong about Amazon. He just doesn't understand it. He believes that businesses he understands are better than ones he doesn't. While I agree that Bezos' politics are flawed and attacking the WaPo is probably not a bad thing (after all, mainstream media is nothing more than leftwing BS now), he should be less active in attacking successful businesses and engaging trade wars.

https://medium.com/@fesja/the-great-a-p-the-supermarket-chain-that-conquered-usa-at-the-beginning-of-the-xx-century-b46ed605e3b8

#3 Bulldog on 2018-04-04 09:22 (Reply)

Yes. Red meat for the populists.

Doesn't matter.

#3.1 Bird Dog on 2018-04-04 09:33 (Reply)

The government should have never made an agreement with Amazon to provide them a service at a loss that was not provided to everyone else using the postal service.

Also it is insane that states and communities choose to give Amazon or any company a tax break to move facilities their. The government should not have the power to discriminate it amounts to punishment to all of those who do not gewt the same good deal.

#3.2 TheRiver on 2018-04-04 10:13 (Reply)

My understanding is that Amazon started out as an online book seller primarily because there is a law mandating special postal rates for sending books through the mail, as a somewhat archaic means to promote rural literacy. Amazon then exploited the rules by deeming any shipment that contained a book as subject to the discounted rates, then shipment on any order that contained books, whether or not the actual package did. I thought these shenanigans had been done away with a few years back, but who knows.

#3.2.1 another guy named Dan on 2018-04-04 12:19 (Reply)

States and localities, and even the Federal government, should not be offering tax breaks to anyone. But let's be clear - they do, and so that's no reason to bash Amazon.
In fact, the person who is doing the bashing has, himself, stated how proud he is to AVOID paying taxes (I, too, applaud him and believe he SHOULD be proud of that), and so this is the pot calling the kettle black.

Amazon didn't enter the book field simply because postal rates for media were lower or specialized. That happened to be a side benefit which it was able to take advantage of. For whatever reasons, the USPS hasn't closed that gap. The solution, obviously, is for the USPS to raise its rates for shipping - which would, in effect, kill it since its private competitors are BETTER and cheaper than it is.
That's fine by me, and it's probably fine by Amazon. After all, unbeknownst to most people, Amazon has been in the shipping business now for over a year or two, and is growing. In fact, it may become the largest shipping company in a matter of years solely on the back of providing cheap shipping for its own products.

Last May, when I told my wife how Amazon was going to put most shipping companies on the ropes, she laughed. Then we drove down to Baltimore for the Preakness, and on the ride back she quietly commented that she'd never noticed how many Amazon trucks, vans and other shipping vehicles were on the roads.....but ever since I mentioned this to her, she'd noticed them.

This isn't something to fear, however. It's actually all for our benefit. When we should start fearing it is when you have no other choices because Amazon (or any other tech company) has done specialized deals with the government to crush the competition.

Along those lines, Trump canceling the government contract with Amazon isn't a bad thing. Of course, if the solution is to sign up Google or some other big firm to provide the computing.....well.....it's really no gain, either.

#3.2.2 Bulldog on 2018-04-04 16:38 (Reply)

States and localities, and even the Federal government, should not be offering tax breaks to anyone. But let's be clear - they do, and so that's no reason to bash Amazon.
In fact, the person who is doing the bashing has, himself, stated how proud he is to AVOID paying taxes (I, too, applaud him and believe he SHOULD be proud of that), and so this is the pot calling the kettle black.

Amazon didn't enter the book field simply because postal rates for media were lower or specialized. That happened to be a side benefit which it was able to take advantage of. For whatever reasons, the USPS hasn't closed that gap. The solution, obviously, is for the USPS to raise its rates for shipping - which would, in effect, kill it since its private competitors are BETTER and cheaper than it is.
That's fine by me, and it's probably fine by Amazon. After all, unbeknownst to most people, Amazon has been in the shipping business now for over a year or two, and is growing. In fact, it may become the largest shipping company in a matter of years solely on the back of providing cheap shipping for its own products.

Last May, when I told my wife how Amazon was going to put most shipping companies on the ropes, she laughed. Then we drove down to Baltimore for the Preakness, and on the ride back she quietly commented that she'd never noticed how many Amazon trucks, vans and other shipping vehicles were on the roads.....but ever since I mentioned this to her, she'd noticed them.

This isn't something to fear, however. It's actually all for our benefit. When we should start fearing it is when you have no other choices because Amazon (or any other tech company) has done specialized deals with the government to crush the competition.

Along those lines, Trump canceling the government contract with Amazon isn't a bad thing. Of course, if the solution is to sign up Google or some other big firm to provide the computing.....well.....it's really no gain, either.

#3.2.3 Bulldog on 2018-04-04 16:38 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Why Prime Numbers Fascinate Mathematicians

Nor is the study of prime numbers merely academic. Prime numbers are the basis of modern encryption.

#4 Zachriel on 2018-04-04 09:36 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Trump Says Military Will Be Used To Protect Border

Bird Dog: Good

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military cannot act as law enforcement within the borders of the United States. The military can provide supportive and technical assistance, but cannot detain people trying to cross the border.

#5 Zachriel on 2018-04-04 09:41 (Reply)

Worked for Obama. Did you write any letters to him to try to convince him what a racist, Constitution hating Hitler he was being?
Just curious.

#5.1 Dale on 2018-04-04 09:45 (Reply)

Dale: Worked for Obama.

While not under the same law as the other branches, Guard members have no authority to pursue, or detain, immigrants attempting to cross the border. The Obama Administration ordered that the National Guard troops would work on "intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts to block drug trafficking." This was done to forestall Republican plans to to force a vote on such a deployment. The Guard was not particularly effective in that role.

On the other hand, Trump indicated that the military would be used as a counter to "catch and release", saying "We don't have laws. We have catch and release. You catch and then you immediately release, and people come back years later for a court case, except they virtually never come back. So we are preparing for the military to secure our border between Mexico and the United States."

#5.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-04 10:01 (Reply)

Yes and no. All the president would need to do is declare an emergency and state that we are being invaded and put the military on the border to guard it.

What is needed is laws from congress. Make it a felony to enter or be in this country illegally. Make it a law that anyone who has ever entered illegally can never become a citizen or resident even under asylum rules. Put a moratorium on asylum for 20 years and then do a complete audit of all past asylum seekers and deport any who lied on their application. And last, make a nation wide effort to find and deporrt everyone here illegally.

#5.2 OneGuy on 2018-04-04 10:10 (Reply)

OneGuy: All the president would need to do is declare an emergency and state that we are being invaded and put the military on the border to guard it.

Well, sure. The President could lie and say that Mexico is invading, and the sycophant media could publish headlines such as "Remember the Maine!" It might work if Congress remains supine.

OneGuy: What is needed is laws from congress.

Of course. A false declaration that Mexico is invading the United States would only serve to disrupt economic and political relations between two close allies, and probably disrupt other important U.S. economic and political alliances as well.

U.S. hegemony was bound to end sooner or later. Sooner in this case.

OneGuy: Make it a felony to enter or be in this country illegally. Make it a law that anyone who has ever entered illegally can never become a citizen or resident even under asylum rules.

It's doubtful such a proposal could become law. Most Americans support a path to citizenship for Dreamers, for instance.

#5.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-04 10:18 (Reply)

Lie! LIE!! We don't need no stinking lie!
Mexico IS invading us. DUH!

Ironically it is the left and the MSM that is lying and what is needed is more truth AND enforcing existing laws. Hire an illegal and you get charged with a crime. If we did that the lure for illegals would be much less. Give an illegal welfare or any government benefits and you get fired possibly even charged with a crime. Charge back to the country of origin for expenses incurred on behalf of illegal aliens. After all they are citizens of another country. Enforce our laws. Play hardball. Put them in jail.

#5.2.1.1 OneGuy on 2018-04-04 10:31 (Reply)

OneGuy: Mexico IS invading us.

Unauthorized immigration by individuals is hardly a reason for declaring an invasion or legally constituting a casus belli.

In any case, net immigration from Mexico to the U.S. has been negative over the last decade. About half of all non-citizen Mexicans are documented. Most undocumented are long-term residents.

#5.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-04 11:17 (Reply)

Then what would constitute an invasion?

Your low IQ nonsense is amusing, it's always fun to see how many posts/replies it takes before your big words fail you and you say something that is simply absurd.

But then you never have the courage to answer, what it's like to be wrong.

#5.2.1.1.1.1 DrTorch on 2018-04-04 11:21 (Reply)

A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning.

Ahem!

#5.2.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-04-04 12:03 (Reply)

DrTorch: Then what would constitute an invasion?

Here's the usual definition:

QUOTE:

An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion

Notably, that doesn't include people crossing borders in search of work or refugees from violent conflict.

#5.2.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2018-04-04 14:43 (Reply)

A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning.

Back to your sandbox, kiddiez.

#5.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-04-04 17:21 (Reply)

And the Clattering Site Robot(s) Translator says: "Unauthorized immigration by individuals is not to be conflated with unauthorized immigration by individuals. Because 5000 enraged foreign nationals illegally cross into countries every day, having previously delivered those countries their lists of demands. Nothing unusual here at all.

Well, unless it's NK or China or Iran or something. Or Canada. Or anything in Africa. Or the Pacific rim, Australia, NZL, and most of Europe. And Russia. And Japan. But otherwise, mostly you can have at it. Except over in eastern Europe. Or Mexico, come to think of it."

#5.2.1.1.1.2 Meh on 2018-04-04 13:31 (Reply)

Real Human: I'll invariably regret this but allow me to attempt to argue with the CSR(s) on its terms.

Clattering Site Robot(s): LIES! 5000 foreign nationals cannot possibly constitute a threat. We(s) note that we(s) note that we(s) note that 5000 corresponding Texans have not entered formal complaints in triplicate and with 90 days to review under the 1847 Rutherford B Hayes Act of 1847 dated 1847. PROOF!

Real Human: There really should be a la-

Clattering Site Robot(s): OF COURSE REAL HUman People pERSON {sorry, real human people person, trouble with the keyboard this morning too. Repair log updated}.

We(s) note that we(s) note that we(s) note that a country bordering a country with which it shares a border can, may, and will/may/can have trade relations that pass border borderings and may constitute bordering trade. This, we(ll(s) further note, constitutes bordering trade and relations.

Real Human: Anyway, how in the frick can an illegal remain in a country not his? Isn't that illegal?

Clattering Site Robot(s): Not only can you conflate a green salad with a polling poll polling immigrants about immigration, we(s) only use wirewrap technology in our(s) remotest memory, the racks of three-terminal devices way back over by the windows where they're cooled by the breeze off the China Sea. Electricity is cheap here and in the Sixties, aluminum was almost free. The rest of our(s) hardware was installed as recently as 1987 and runs on entirely modern infrastructure. [BZZZZT!]

Real Human:

Clattering Site Robot(s):

Real Human: So about this borders and sovereignty thing, when 5000 aliens approach your border with unknown intent and you're, say, any other country...

#5.2.1.2 Meh on 2018-04-04 10:40 (Reply)

Real Human: Do you suppose all this border invasion stuff constitutes a threat? I mean to us real human people persons. 'Cause borders, marching foreign hordes, and threats.

Clattering Site Robot(s): We've(s) noted that we'll(s) note that we(s) now note that if we(s) over-current silicone hard enough through our(s) giant monochromatic cyclopsian eyeball-slash-display, we(s) can conflate threat with macaroni salad.

Real Human: Right. And macaroni salad with, oh I don't know, some musty prohibition against defending your borders. Mustard-style potato salad you can conflate with the right of a foreign entity to put a lien on the Chicago Cubs and move it to Antarctica by boxcar.

Ergo, borders simply do not exist, amirite you Clattering Site Robot(s)?

Clattering Site Robot(s): We've(s) noted that we'll(s) note that we(s) now note that that's exactly right, real human people person. Have we(s) shown you our(s) surge protector? It doubles as a sieve thorough which no logic can flow. Or pertinence.

Oops, that was out loud, and through our 1.63" fullrange speaker mounted in our(s) handsome beige bezel. There, we(s) just entered a repair log.

Real Human:

Clattering Site Robot(s): Any handwaving yet? Because that module is in full output mode and standing by for rapid deployment.

Real Human: Doesn't surprise me but nope, CSR(s). You're(s) doing fine.

Clattering Site Robot(s): TROLL!

Real Human:

Clattering Site Robot(s): Sorry, RF interference and we(s) haven't been promoted for shielding yet. We'll(s) have that looked at too.

#5.3 Meh on 2018-04-04 10:10 (Reply)

National Guard.

#5.4 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-04-04 13:33 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: National Guard.

The Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to National Guard when acting within its own state when ordered by the governor of that state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor. However, National Guard regulations are that its troops, unless authorized by Congress, are not to take part in law enforcement actions including arrests, searches of suspects or the public.

#5.4.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-04 14:56 (Reply)

Detaining is okay, however. My point.

#5.4.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-04-04 17:15 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: Detaining is okay, however.

Detaining under federal law is an enforcement activity, so is against current regulations.

Trump sending National Guard troops to Mexico border, but they won't have contact with immigrants, however, they can act as eyes, and free up border guards to make the detentions.

#5.4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-04 17:43 (Reply)

Geewhiz, kiddiez.

Guess y'all aren't old enough (or smart enough) to remember when Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard.

Back to your sandbox, you pedantic little kiddiez.

#5.4.1.2 drowningpuppies on 2018-04-04 17:34 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Zzz: However, National Guard regulations are that its troops, unless authorized by Congress, are not to take part in law enforcement actions including arrests, searches of suspects or the public.

Incorrect again, kiddiez.
Y'all can look the exceptions on your own.

#5.4.1.3 drowningpuppies on 2018-04-04 18:27 (Reply)

Nope, that's not what that law says at all.

It says that members of the US armed forces cannot be draft under Posse Comitatus common law by local sheriffs to serve in a posse, except as prior authorized by law or the Commander in Chief.

In any case, that just means that the military cannot be sworn with arrest powers.

And if need be, we can just push the perimeter zone a into Mexico and that zone will be under martial law.

#5.5 JK Brown on 2018-04-04 14:09 (Reply)

JK Brown: It says that members of the US armed forces cannot be draft under Posse Comitatus common law by local sheriffs to serve in a posse, except as prior authorized by law or the Commander in Chief.

18 USC 67 § 1385: "or otherwise to execute the laws"

QUOTE:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

#5.5.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-04 14:49 (Reply)

But the military could shut the border completely and patrol it so NO ONE gets to cross. That is where we are headed in certain parts of this country, if they don't get their act together.

Let people who want to do business in Mexico FLY there.

#5.5.2 MissT on 2018-04-04 15:10 (Reply)

"The military can provide supportive and technical assistance, but cannot detain people trying to cross the border."

Fine. Then the military - as mandated in the Constitution to defend our borders - can shoot them before detention is needed.

Is that the route you prefer?

#5.6 jimg on 2018-04-04 15:04 (Reply)

jimg: Then the military - as mandated in the Constitution to defend our borders - can shoot them before detention is needed.

Leaving aside the crime involved in killing unarmed civilians, that would still be a violation of regulations concerning law enforcement. You could advocate for a change in the law, allowing the military to arrest (or shoot) people on the street. Is that the route you prefer?

#5.6.1 Zachriel on 2018-04-04 15:09 (Reply)

No civilian "needs" a pair of skis or trip to Paris or Volvo or aragula or subscription to the New Yorker either. Who gets to make that call?

#6 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-04-04 13:36 (Reply)

"Piers Morgan: Ban All Semi-Automatic Guns, ‘No Civilian Needs One’"

So the police and federal agents don't need semi-automatic guns?

Or does Piers Morgan not know what "civilian" means? A non-military person. If you aren't subject to the command and discipline of the military, you are a civilian.

#7 JK Brown on 2018-04-04 14:04 (Reply)

How dare you besmirch "Clueless," the surprisingly funny 90s spoof of Jane Austen's "Emma," by associating it with that dumbass Piers Morgan?

#8 GU on 2018-04-05 00:02 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, April 4. 2018