We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, February 10. 2017
A reason to avoid relationships with crazy people
The Next Big Blue-Collar Job Is Coding
Twitter Crashes On Revenue Miss, Terrible Guidance, Declining US Sales, Flat US Users
From Culture to Cupcakes - The once-great University of California at Berkeley continues its descent into victimology.
Ultra-elite College suspends classes for events on privilege, 'sports culture'
Berkeley Students: Milo Had It Coming
GERMANY’S ENERGIEWENDE - A disaster in the making
Show trials and Stalin's children
"When Everyone's a Racist, then No One Will Be"
Three Muslim Brothers, IT Professionals Fired from Capitol Hill for Spying – Funneled House Data to External Server
77% of refugees allowed into U.S. since travel reprieve hail from seven suspect countries
Linda Sarsour Rekindles the Left’s Love Affair with Radical Extremism
Democrats Are Losing Their War With Trump
Scarborough to Trump on Judges: 'Presidents Don't Speak This Way'
Harsanyi: Authoritarianism Is Not Confined To One Political Party - The shared governing philosophy of contemporary liberalism and Trumpism
Education tyranny: What the opposition to DeVos says about liberals
Paris Builds Barrier Around Eiffel Tower to Limit Terrorism
Tracked: Feb 12, 09:23
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Presidents don't speak this way"
It continues to amaze me how stupid the left can be. When the Washington state judge stopped the ban everyone who understood the law knew he was wrong and had committed a political act not a judicial one. He was in fact a "so-called judge" at that point. The 9th Circus in their wisdom decided to confirm that they too are "so-called judges". It's almost as though they were competing to prove Trump right. It reminded me of how you can be driving in traffic and some doddering old fool in front of you is driving slow and you end up tailgating them. But the doddering old fool is now pissed at you so they drive slower to stick their finger in your eye. That's what the 9th circus has become. And dear I say did you see the pictures of these judges??? I know, I shouldn't judge people by their looks but seriously did you see these judges??? When you look up doddering old fool in the dictionary those are the same pictures!!!
Then right on queue after Trump was excoriated by every liberal in the country for putting the ban in place too quickly without enough warning and causing chaos. (One wonders how did all those 'protestors assemble at all those airports throughout the country on such short notice???) But right on queue the ban is halted and what happens but the terrorists (or potential terrorists) from these seven countries begin a flood into our country just exactly as Trump warned us they would. Hmmmmm! Once again Trump was right and the liberals are stupid.
What matters to the liberals? Not America. Not our safety. Not the citizens. What is it they want???
Nice piece GWTW!
However, and I wonder why I have to keep reminding MF about this: the old families of SEATTLE run this country. As much as you folks would like to protest this common fact the only other power as great as SEATTLE is in NYC. Here is a list of the companies owned and operated by the same families:
1. Boeing--(those sales to China are critical)
2. Microsoft (EVERY computer system in both Federal and
State governments operate on this system.)
5. US Bank
6. Nordstrom (gotta get Trump's kid too--didn't they send a
MOST IMPORTANT ! Let's not forget that it is the women of these families who organized the campaign (the behind the scenes political power campaign) to put Obama in the white house in the first place. First, they practiced on the take down of the Episcopal Church. Then they moved on to putting the next president in office. Do you really think it was that judge who had his own legal opinion? Sheesh!
"What is it they want???"
Dystopian utopia. Insane sanity. Ordered social-disorder. Up if it's down, down if it's up. White if it's black, black if it's white. But for the love of God, don't mention God in any of this.
"the only other power as great as SEATTLE is in NYC"
We will control the vertical.
We can roll the image, make it flutter.
We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity.
The once-great University of California at Berkeley continues its descent into victimology.
We haven't found the bottom of that hole yet? You'd think that at some point they'd realize the smallest, weakest minority is the minority of one, the individual, and we can come full-circle on this victimology thing. Maybe start championing the classic liberal ideal of the sovereignty of the individual and his conscience. You know, the whole judging people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin thing a wise man once suggested.
RE If Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Scientists Keep Cheating?
We don't consider it "cheating", which is a harsh word. We "adjust" publically available data with revealed truth from private, arcane sources known only to us, the Elect. For example, we know that 19th century weather satellites provided data only so-so reliable. So we correlate this older information with truth gained from our divination by reading bird entrails. We are never wrong and we will remind you of this constantly because that's all we're good for.
All I can think of is Sweden. The people in that government are SO liberal minded that they are covering up crimes by muslim immigrants to the detriment of their country and their culture.
I'm assuming this is exactly what the left wants the U.S. to be. They think the United States is too white, too Euro-centric and somehow inherently 'racist,' so they want us to learn a lesson and let in a flood of foreigners so we understand how great that is.
No thanks. I can look at the UK, Sweden, Germany, etc. and see what's coming here. I don't want it. Most Americans don't want it. And thank God we were smart enough to put a president in office who thinks the same.
Scarborough to Trump: "Presidents don't speak this way"
Oh, please, please let the reply be
Trump to Scarborough: "Oh, go f*** your chickensh** self."
Ref crazy castration article
At the end of that article was an ad for Amazon 14 piece knife and block set.
"A first-time visitor to the Berkeley law school would be startled by the two long quotations, in Bauhaus-era typography, that adorn its otherwise brutalist facade, so anachronistic has their rhetoric become."
Those two plaques were considered so ugly (along with the rest of the law school) that by the time I was there in the Seventies they had grown large trees right in front of them to totally cover them up and so you couldn't read them. Students always joked the plaques said "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here." In the last decade they have renovated and encapsulated the old dumpy law school building in a surrounding much larger structure of gleaming steel and glass, and in the process cut down the trees and again exposed the ridiculous plaques to human view.
In the Seventies, U.C. Berkeley had such a bad public reputation that the law school and its graduates pretended it wasn't part of the surrounding university, and referred to it as "Boalt Hall," or more simply, "Boalt." (The official name was something like the "Boalt Hall School of Law of the University of California.") Now it's "Berkeley Law," but us old fogies always just say we went to Boalt.
I was at UCB in the 70s myself. I always got a kick out of Wurster Hall, the ugliest building on campus and home to the Architecture department (now Environmental Design). Numerous suicides off the top of that building, no doubt they were architecture majors.
I get that you're venting, but calling a senior district judge a "so-called" judge and making an argument based on what "everybody knows" puts you at the same low, low level as the snowflakes and social justice libtards who whine when things don't go their way. in fact, apart from point of view, I don't see any difference between you and them. they screeched, now you screech.
I expect that liberals posting to any internet forum will have little to no understanding of any legal issues, I wish I could have greater expectations from conservatives. but I don't. and because they're better at PR spew than you are, its your kind of bullshit reaction that contributes to the noise level that we need to cut through to make our point with intelligence.
I believe it was in 1973 or 1974 that the first contingent of bar exam attendees did not pass the ethics portion of the exam. First time ever, I have been told.
I once had cause to speak with 23 attorneys in the King County Bar Association. Every single one of them told me they were "afraid". That they could not accept a case against the women i power in Seattle, because "those women will destroy me." I once was friends with a local judge who said, " I came to work for these folks and have been with them ever since." The judge owned a very nice large yacht and quite a few acres of high priced real estate. He also was required to stand for election ever two years. Elections he had won for close to 30 years--isn't that interesting? I spoke with two state congress people (one male and one female) both had been "re-elected" for more than 24 years. He told me, "just do as THEY tell you". He was speaking about Boeing. I don't know how to provide more "clear details" here at MF, but I think you can assume that I am probably closer to sane and rational than not.
"The Dems are the original KKK'ers" It's really way past time to discard this meme. Today's Dem party is far different from the right-wing Dixiecrats of 60 years ago. They are far worse and wrapped way around to their own left. The leftists of today correspond more closely to communists and anarchists of the 'forties and 'fifties. Why not just say so?
What was the joke? Wurster was the ugliest building on campus and Barrows Hall was the box it came in? Something like that.
Overall I think Cal's campus is nicer and prettier than Stanford, especially with the surrounding hills and Strawberry Creek running through campus, but whoever built the buildings from the Fifties through the Seventies should be shot. They were so intentionally ugly, starting with the law school.
Actually, looking at photos online, maybe it was Evans rather than Barrows that people were calling the box.
We have lost our country: judges rewriting laws (not their job!); non-elected administrators refusing to apply the law regarding our borders and rights of citizenship; police and other LEOs standing down when citizens obeying the law are being threatened, the latest example being BLM inhibiting Sec'y DeVos from doing her job, but Milo has suffered equal treatment at several planned addresses as did President-Elect Trump when he tried to make presentations at rallies in Chicago and Wausau; etc.
How are we supposed to teach morals to our children when the adults in our country ignore the very Constitution that makes our government attract those from around the world who also chose to ignore it.
I get what you are saying about making points with intelligence. I really do. I believe the conservative side of the aisle has been making well reasoned arguments for years. To very little affect.
We try, on this very blog, to make well informed, intelligent, fact based arguments to the Zach Borg. Where has that gotten anyone on this blog? Have we persuaded them, on any topic, even once? Even something so glaringly obvious as efficiencies of the private sector versus government. Might as well bang your head against the wall.
So if we go and site 8 US Code 1182, is that going to get us anywhere with the lefty activists? I am nothing close to being an attorney, my reading comprehension is pretty high, I am an engineer, I heard Rush site that Code on his show, so I read some of it. It makes sense. I have no idea if that Code has been overturned or supper ceded by some other law, but it doesn't matter. The left will not listen.
The Judiciary has been (mostly, it depends on the case, as to how impartial they will rule) overtaken by lefty activists, who have the same mentality of those marching in the street: Might makes right, and the ends justifies the means. They will not listen to any argument, no matter how well reasoned, fact based or intelligent. How do you cut through that?
I get it that your schtick is to insult everyone and be as rude and abrasive as possible but you are simply wrong.
The judge knew he was wrong he knew he was playing politics and he did it anyway. So YES he is a "so-called judge", not above criticism and in my opi nion should be impeached. Ditto for the three fools from the 9th circus.
your problem is you have a reflexive, and therefore unreasoned, hatred of immigrants that bars you from engaging in any sane discussion of how to deal with the libtards. your comments here are, frankly, childish and do not, in the least help the conservative cause.
if you think being told "you're wrong" is insulting, then maybe you should step away from the internet and go outside for a while.
Gee, ThoughtCriminal's insulting rant in #188.8.131.52 sounds so much like a Trump Tweet it just has to be. Donald? Donald? Is that you?
When everyone's a racist....
I'm a Nazi he's a Nazi she's a Nazi
wouldn't you like to be a Nazi too?
you have some well stated points.
1. zachriels. she's getting bitchslapped stupid daily, and I see why this is frustrating because it keeps slinking back for more of the same, but, in fact, its a good thing overall. zhe's just here to disrupt, and it'll be here until it gets bored. not well formally educated, but clever with wikipedia and from whatever source she cribs from, which gives a superficial knowledge which, unfortunately is coupled with her well honed ability to manipulate a discussion. as I've said over and over, if you control the terms and assumptions of a debate you'll control the range of outcomes. this zachrrels does well. This is true for any pro-illegal group: illegals here without a visa or overstayed a visa = immigrant meaning the fix involves legal permanent residency and the "pathway to citizenship". they won't propose a solution like temporary admission to follow the cabbage harvest then go home, because fixing the problem is not what they want. by the terminology they use "migrant", "immigrant", "DREAMER", any fix that makes them lawfully entered non-immigrants who have to eventually go home is off the table.
sacrhriels will never convince anyone on this site, or most other sites, (a) because that's not important to him, (b) because she's typically wrong. BUT, there are readers of MF who never post, and I'm sure there are a lot of them. THEY read his preachy screeds and see how she's taken apart when the debate doesn't degenerate into "yes it is / no it isn't." THAT's where we win, even if you don't see the results, and that's how windy's "deport all immigrants" bullshit can be so harmful, since any sane reader will conclude that windy's opinion is just as ridiculous as zachisreels'.
2. 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens. casually read the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 . now glance at the administrative rules that interpret congressional intent on how the statute is to be enforced: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/8cfr.html Don't try to read them, it would take a day. I could link the Board of Immigration Appeals and the district, appellate and Supreme Court decisions interpreting the above but there are thousands of these.
so "inadmissibility" is not a self-evident concept. like "due process" or "freedom of speech", there's this huge body of law built up over decades that explains what "inadmissibility" means. Rush is doing a show, he's equating "Syrian" with "Islam bomber who wants to fly a piper cub into your kid's little league game". that's what his audience wants to hear, and it works fine on any conservative website or forum, and if I were a campaign manager, I'd certainly use this image; but make a simplistic argument like that in immigration court, or the ninth circuit, and you'll get destroyed by the other side.
Now look at the statute again, in detail if you can stand it. Notice two things.
First, it talks about inadmissibility of individuals because of some undesirable traits. even where that trait is membership in some group, it still talks about individuals. so when the government takes actions against groups then there are conservatives who see the ugliness of Korematsu. I invite you to read Justice Murphy's blistgering dissent in this case, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/323/214/case.html it starts at page 233. obviously, the situations are not the same, Korematsu was a US citizen, but Justice Murphy invokes fundamental American principles that are both prophetic and worth pondering.
to infer that examples of individual disloyalty prove group disloyalty and justify discriminatory action against the entire group is to deny that, under our system of law, individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights. Moreover, this inference, which is at the very heart of the evacuation orders, has been used in support of the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy. To give constitutional sanction to that inference in this case, however well intentioned may have been the military command on the Pacific Coast, is to adopt one of the cruelest of the rationales used by our enemies to destroy the dignity of the individual and to encourage and open the door to discriminatory actions against other minority groups in the passions of tomorrow.
this, I think, is a statement of true American conservatism.
some might argue there is no right to claim refuge in the US, and Murphy's dissent has no application, but in fact, Congress says that refugees have a right to make this kind of claim on America, and the ultimate authority for that claim is the Constitution.
Now, when you read the statute, look for all the exceptions and waivers. there's a lot, all of which are subject to the same kind of interpretation by the CFR and courts as the rest of the statute. someone found inadmissible still might qualify for a waive of inadmissibility for any of dozens of reasons. obviously a card-carrying ISIS member is not going to qualify, but the point is, "admissibility" is not an easy concept to discuss or debate in a general blog.
any, some points to consider.
you're looking for attention, aren't you.
" unreasoned, hatred of immigrants"
Wrong. I have a love of American, the constitution and our citizens. I believe in putting them first. I believe that our current immigration policy was created by Ted Kennedy Democrats and was intended to destroy the middle class and allow a massive influx of people who would choose to be Democrat voters. In other words I think this is a long coup which is quickly reaching the point of no return.
"you think being told "you're wrong" is insulting"
Not even close. I think being told I am wrong is like a bone to a dog. To the contrary you think being insulting is the equivalent of telling someone they are wrong. You are like my 9 year old grandson who throws tantrums and when he doesn't get what he wants he enjoys saying things he knows will upset and anger the adults. This is how he lashes back and I'm working hard to teach him better. If this is how you are in real life then you need help. If it is simply your internet persona you will continue to get push back instead of reasoned discourse. The choice is yours.