Thursday, February 2, 2017

Kate Moss for W Magazine

At London's Daily Mail, "Kate Moss, 43, goes completely naked for W magazine as she joins Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Chastain, Taraji P Henson and Donatella Versace."

And at W, "Kate Moss is Proudly Naked at 43 and Going Strong as Fashion's Reigning Muse."

Gorsuch Nomination Battle May Go Nuclear

Actually, I hope does.

Harry Reid opened the door to chucking the filibuster. Trump's likely to have another nomination this year or next, due to retirements on the Court. Throwing out the filibuster could move the Senate to a straight majoritarian chamber, better reflecting the will of the electorate. Now's the time to do it. The GOP could lock in a conservative majority on the Court for years, if not decades.

At the Los Angeles Times, from day before yesterday, "Democrats are ready to fight Trump's Supreme Court pick as the GOP-led Senate weighs 'nuclear option' on filibuster":

After Republicans blocked a string of President Obama’s judicial and executive nominees, frustrated Senate Democrats in 2013 used their majority to change long-standing filibuster rules and allow confirmations with a simple majority.

Now Republicans are considering the same “nuclear option” to confirm President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court if Democrats mount a filibuster, as they appear poised to do.

So while Democrats sound alarms over Trump’s high court nomination and threaten to block it, their ability to actually stop him will be limited, thanks in part to their past willingness to change the filibuster rule when they held power.

Trump plans to announce Tuesday evening his choice for the seat made vacant last year by the death of conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia.

Senate filibusters of Supreme Court nominees are rare, largely because the decision had been seen as too important to be bogged down in partisanship.

When President Johnson tried to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to the position of chief justice, senators filibustered in part over an ethics scandal that eventually forced Fortas to resign. In 2006, Democrats, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, tried to filibuster Samuel A. Alito Jr., but the effort fizzled and Alito was confirmed.

Trump has encouraged Republican senators to scrap the filibuster and quickly confirm his choice. “We have obstructionists,” Trump told Fox’s Sean Hannity last week. Asked whether he wants GOP leaders to change the rules for the high court, he said, “I do.”

Without a filibuster, Republicans have enough votes to confirm Trump’s pick, assuming the party is unified. Republicans hold a 52-48 majority.

But if a filibuster is allowed, they’d need Democrats to help reach the 60-vote threshold needed to defeat the tactic.

And Democrats are in no mood to cooperate with Trump. Many remain incensed that Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s choice of Judge Merrick Garland after Scalia’s death, leaving the court with only eight justices for nearly a year.

“This was a stolen seat; it’s not Trump’s to fill,” said one Senate Democratic aide granted anonymity to discuss the situation...
Heh.

It's not "stolen." Democrats are just poor losers. See, "The 'Stolen' Supreme Court Seat."

Plus, still more at the link.

The 'Stolen' Supreme Court Seat

Nobody "stole" anything.

Joe Biden advocated the same alleged changing of the "rules" back when he was chair of the Senate Judiciary committee in the 1990s. Both sides do it. It's just that Republicans gambled on a power-play last year and won a massive and decisive victory with Donald Trump's election. All leftists can do now is scream about "stolen" seats" and about how "Hillary won the popular vote."

God it's pathetic.

But we're in a new era. Democrats just can't stand that they now face a powerful Republican administration, and majority in Congress, that is willing and able to fight by the very rules leftists invented: Alinsky Rule #4, make the enemy live up to its own standards.

In any case, see the childish whiner David Leonhart, at the New York Times (where else?), "Why Democrats Should Oppose Neil Gorsuch":
It’s important to remember just how radical — and, yes, unprecedented — the Senate’s approach to the previous Supreme Court nominee was.

Republican leaders announced last March that they would not consider any nominee. They did so even though Barack Obama still had 10 months left in his term and even though other justices (including Anthony Kennedy) had been confirmed in a president’s final year.

The refusal was a raw power grab. Coupled with Republican hints that no Hillary Clinton nominee would be confirmed either, it was a fundamental changing of the rules: Only a party that controlled both the White House and the Senate would now be able to assume it could fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

The change is terribly damaging for the country’s political system. It impedes the smooth functioning of the court and makes it a much more partisan institution.

Of course, the strategy also worked, and the flip from an Obama justice to a Trump justice will likely be the deciding factor in many of the most important cases in coming years.

So what can Democrats do?

First, they need to make sure that the stolen Supreme Court seat remains at the top of the public’s consciousness. When people hear the name “Neil Gorsuch,” as qualified as he may be, they should associate him with a constitutionally damaging power grab.

Second, Democrats should not weigh this nomination the same way that they’ve weighed previous ones. This one is different. The presumption should be that Gorsuch does not deserve confirmation, because the process that led to his nomination was illegitimate....

*****

Finally, the Democratic Party should begin planning its long-term strategy for the court, and that strategy needs to revolve around last year’s events. One option, for example, would be a plan first to deprive a Republican president of one nominee in coming years and second to offer a truce with Republicans.

I understand that all of these options sound aggressive and partisan, and it makes me deeply uncomfortable to make such an argument. But Democrats simply cannot play by the old set of rules now that the Republicans are playing by a new one. The only thing worse than the system that the Republicans have created is a system in which one political party volunteers to be bullied.
It doesn't make him "deeply uncomfortable." Frankly, by a look at his Twitter feed, the dude's reveling in his partisan hatred and demonization of the administration.

Fuck him.

America's New Opposition: The Left Has Been Reborn

Well, I suppose there's something to the argument of a renewed left --- it makes sense with the Democrats out of power, and especially so in the aftermath of Donald Trump's crushing (extinction-level) defeat of Hillary Clinton. The collective left has gone insane. Our political system is in a constant state of partisan siege. It only makes sense that the most angry seeds of the leftist revolt will be found in the bilge of the progressive fever swamps.

From Jedediah Purdy, at the New Republic, "America’s New Opposition":

In late October 2011, I was volunteering at the Occupy Wall Street library in lower Manhattan. Tucked into a corner of Zuccotti Park, the library was staffed mainly by anarchists of an exceedingly orderly bent. If society were suddenly freed from coercive institutions like libraries, these people would gladly spend the morning sorting donated books by Dewey decimal number—as they were doing in the mild fall weather. I was there for only a few days, but one conversation with a book borrower has stayed with me. He was having trouble understanding why he kept returning to the encampment. He wondered: Had anything like this happened before? Were there books that could tell him who had done it, and why? I felt I was meeting a victim of a political shipwreck. In my mind, he became emblematic of a left that felt itself so unmoored from any shared past that it was puzzled by its own existence.

Now that Donald Trump occupies the White House, it’s easy to feel that we are all castaways in historical time. There is talk in some quarters of leaving the country, of turning blue cities and states into sanctuaries, not just for the undocumented, but for disillusioned liberals—a response that amounts to giving up on creating a just and inclusive democracy in this divided land. But such feelings of despair miss the deeper and perhaps more lasting political transformation that has taken place in the five years since Zuccotti Park.

Indeed, the irruption of radicalism at Occupy turned out to be prophetic. For the first time in decades, the left regained its focus and put down new roots. Fight for $15, the campaign for a higher minimum wage led by fast-food workers, made gains in New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco. Rolling Jubilee, founded in 2012, bought and canceled almost $32 million in medical and student debt. Black Lives Matter has forced America to reckon with police violence against black men and highlighted the economic isolation of many black communities. Last year, Bernie Sanders won more than 13 million votes. And recent polls show that a majority of Americans under the age of 30 now prefer socialism to capitalism. While it is unclear just what they mean by that, a renewed openness to radical ideas is unmistakable among young people. The mass protests in response to Trump’s policies, both at the women’s march and at airports around the country, in the last weeks show a sense of urgency and willingness to fight for robust legal equality and inclusiveness. At the very moment when establishment politics have been severely undermined—the GOP hijacked by Trump, the Democrats confounded by Hillary Clinton’s loss—the American left has been reborn.

For most of the 2016 election cycle, however, the left was told, implicitly or explicitly, that while they might be charming or admirable, they should leave real politics to the adults of the Democratic National Committee and the liberal commentariat. There was one candidate, we were assured, and one web of institutions and experts who understood how to get things done: They were battle-tested and ready to win, then to hit the ground governing. The rest of us had pretty sentiments; it was sweet that we thought the word democracy could refer to something larger in ambition and imagination than the current version of the Democratic Party; but politics means putting away childish things.

In the wake of Trump’s victory in November, the present leadership of the Democratic Party has failed to grasp the lessons of its own defeat. “I don’t think people want a new direction,” Nancy Pelosi insisted on Meet the Press just after the election. The DNC doubled down on that position in early January, announcing the creation of an anti-Trump “war room” staffed with Clinton operatives who will continue attacking Trump’s ethics, character, and speculative ties to Russia. This is the same strategy that failed to win the presidential election against a palpably flawed and eminently beatable candidate.

Though fragmented and incipient, this nascent left is now best placed to mount a convincing opposition to Trump, and to engage with the forces that brought him to power. With its focus on economic inequality and collective action, the left knows things that liberals have been reluctant to acknowledge, or in any event to say—knowledge that is necessary to embrace the populist moment, push back on its reactionary inclinations, and seize its progressive potential. The left is able to diagnose the malfunctioning of our democracy because, unlike the Democratic establishment, it starts from the premise that American democracy as it is currently constituted is profoundly insufficient...
An interesting, although profoundly mistaken analysis. Hillary Clinton ran far to the left, much farther than her 2008 campaign, and farther left than both of Barack Obama's campaigns.

The Democrats lost not just because Crooked Hillary was a disaster waiting to happen, it's simply that the electorate repudiated leftism. What we're seeing now, all across the board, especially with the increasing violence, is going to help the Republicans. For all of Donald Trump's flaws, and he's got many, he keeps winning. And it's so early. I do think we're in for perpetual outrage and the concomitant never-ending street protests. In the end what will matter is good governance. Democrats are making massive gambles at this very minute with literally unhinged obstructionism. The voters will see more of the same and punish the "establishment," which is best represented now by the progressive-collectivist elite.

But continue reading.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Masked Rioters Shut Down Milo Yiannopoulos at U.C. Berkeley (VIDEO)

Here's Milo's statement on Facebook, "I was just evacuated from UC Berkeley (VIDEO)."

This is perhaps the most violent protest against the man yet. Clearly leftists are even more enraged now that the "alt-right" has a sympathetic ear in the White House.

And at Fox News, and on Twitter below.

There's a major black bloc element out there. These folks are not going to tolerate a difference of opinion. No wonder Yiannopoulos was evacuated. We're on the precipice of civil war. And the initial violent skirmishes are already breaking out on America's campuses.




Trump Administration's Religious Freedom Executive Order

The hits keep coming for leftists, and the freak-out index keeps dialing up.

It turns out the administration's forthcoming executive order on religious freedom's been leaked, and far-left outlets are in meltdown mode.

At Newsweek, "LGBT Groups Brace for Trump Religious Freedom Executive Order."

At at the Nation, "Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination":

If signed, the order would create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity.

leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.

The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”

Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”

 The breadth of the draft order, which legal experts described as “sweeping” and “staggering,” may exceed the authority of the executive branch if enacted. It also, by extending some of its protections to one particular set of religious beliefs, would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“This executive order would appear to require agencies to provide extensive exemptions from a staggering number of federal laws—without regard to whether such laws substantially burden religious exercise,” said Marty Lederman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on church-state separation and religious freedom.

The exemptions, Lederman said, could themselves violate federal law or license individuals and private parties to violate federal law. “Moreover,” he added, “the exemptions would raise serious First Amendment questions, as well, because they would go far beyond what the Supreme Court has identified as the limits of permissive religious accommodations.” It would be “astonishing,” he said, “if the Office of Legal Counsel certifies the legality of this blunderbuss order.”

The leaked draft maintains that, as a matter of policy, “Americans and their religious organizations will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their conscience.”

It sets forth an exceptionally expansive definition of “religious exercise” that extends to “any act or refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the act is required or compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” “It’s very sweeping,” said Ira Lupu, a professor emeritus at the George Washington University Law School and an expert on the Constitution’s religion clauses and on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). “It raises a big question about whether the Constitution or the RFRA authorizes the president to grant religious freedom in such a broad way.”

In particular, said Lupu, the draft order “privileges” a certain set of beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity—beliefs identified most closely with conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians—over others. That, he said, goes beyond “what RFRA might authorize” and may violate the Establishment Clause.

Lupu added that the language of the draft “might invite federal employees,” for example, at the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration, “to refuse on religious grounds to process applications or respond to questions from those whose benefits depend on same sex marriages.” If other employees do not “fill the gap,” he said, it could “lead to a situation where marriage equality was being de facto undermined by federal employees, especially in religiously conservative communities,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings...
Still more.

Mya Dalbesio Will Blow You Away (VIDEO)

Following-up from the other day, "'It took a while for Sports Illustrated to fully convert from exclusive Muhammed Ali cover stories to foreign lingerie models barely covered in Costa Rican hooker thongs...'"

It's true. I do believe SI's fully embraced its full-on porn identity.

At Theo's, "Mya Dalbesio Will Blow You Away With Her Debut - Intimates - Sports Illustrated Swimsuit."

New Claudia Romani Bikini Pics in Miami

She's amazing.

At London's Daily Mail, "Bottoms up! Model Claudia Romani showcases her perky posterior in barely there bikini bottoms as she soaks up the sun in Miami."

'Never Trumpers' Boarding the #TrumpTrain?

I tweeted last night:

And today at the Conservative Treehouse, "Sorry #NeverTrumpers but You Don’t Get to Dismount Your High Horse Today…":

Sorry #NeverTrumpers, but you don”t get to dismount your high horse and celebrate the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch today.  This is NOT your victory, this is ours!

There is a gobsmacking level of pontificating self-righteousness visible from the collective proletariat within your crony-conservative movement who made the decision to formulate their political argument from a position of opposition.

Perhaps it would be different if you framed your antagonism from a position of advocacy, but that wasn’t the direction you chose.  No, you chose a specific position of opposition as clearly evident within your chosen mantra “Never Trump”.

Perhaps it would be different if you ever had a come-to-Jesus moment and apologized immediately following the November election.  Then again, when your opinion of your own self-importance is this high, those humble words are just as foreign as your understanding of the movement that won.

You don’t get to frame the entire construct of your argument around opposition to a team, and then claim benefit to the outcome of victory.  Stay on your high-horse, move along and ride off into that proverbial land of irrelevance; you’re dead here.

Save your dismount for another defining “conservative” assembly where you can gather at CPAC again and give a standing ovation to House Speaker Paul Ryan a month after he eliminates the debt ceiling and passes a $2 trillion OmniBus spending bill, funding all of the progressive priorities you hypocritically claim to oppose; you’re good at that.

That particular circle of crazy just doesn’t sell here any longer.

Save up your fiscal hypocrisy, you’ll need it.  Because in less than two months our victorious bastard will deliver a budget that cuts a trillion “per year” out of the federal coffers…. and there is no doubt the beneficiary of your prior applause will be counting on your fiscally conservative sensibilities to protest for more spending on his behalf.

Oh, and keep your newest VAT tax construct.  We’ll bring the sledgehammer, save your gilded and monogrammed tweezers for a swamp audience stupid enough to believe it – Thank you.

Oh, and don’t go getting all pearl-clutchy.  This isn’t anger directed toward you, this is far, far worse.  This is a very targeted and deliberate Cold Anger surrounding you and the swamp creatures of your affiliation. This sensibility never forgets.

You had a choice. You chose a direction, you lost; and you damn near lost the entire friggin’ country.  Just because the team you ridiculed and attacked has overcome all opposition and gained victory, that doesn’t mean you get to backtrack now and expect the bruised and bloodied recipients to forget those who launched the stones and arrows.

Save your wine-spritzers and crust-less triangle sandwiches. We didn’t have well financed high-horses, we launched boots, well-worn boots, scratched, clawed and advanced despite your hoighty-toighty principles, intransigence and unwillingness to cuss or get your hands dirty.

Good grief, your insufferable sensibilities were frightened of frog memes, FROG MEMES!

It was our deplorable and calloused hands that volunteered, opened our piggy banks, and held firm to support each other and our vulgarian candidate against all opposition.  You were part of that opposition...
Actually, Mary Katharine Ham did apologize, but not anyone else that I know of.

Filibuster of Gorsuch Could Doom Senate Democrats in 2018 Midterm Elections

Well, Senate Democrats aren't doing anyone any favors right now. It's all chickens with their heads cut off. And it ain't pretty.

At the Other McCain, "Trump Nominates ‘Worthy’ Judge; Democrats Go Into Full-On Panic Mode":

Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review calls Neil Gorsuch a “worthy” appointee to the Supreme Court, “a well-respected conservative whose legal philosophy is remarkably similar to that of Antonin Scalia, the justice he will replace if the Senate confirms him.”

The “if” in that sentence expresses a contingency that is difficult to estimate at this point. Democrats are still butt-hurt because when Scalia died in an election year, the Republican majority in the Senate refused to take action on Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for the vacant seat. Whatever one may think of that controversy, that was last year’s fight and Republicans won it — not only was Donald Trump elected president, but the Garland nomination didn’t hurt the GOP in Senate elections last fall, either. We might therefore conclude that the people ratified the Republican opposition to Obama’s SCOTUS nominee. Yet the Democrats in the Senate evidently don’t recognize the legitimacy of either the Trump presidency or the GOP Senate majority. Many vowed to invoke the filibuster against Trump’s court nominee, even before it was known who the president would nominate...
Yeah, well, like I said, it ain't pretty.

But it's the Democrats we're talking about here. They definitely have not recovered from the November 8th beating. It's going to be a long four years. Long and pretty much hilarious.

Still more.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

A Jarring New Level of Confrontation and Conflict?

I don't think so, actually.

We've had hyper-partisan conflict virtually 24/7 since 2009, when Barack Hussein took office, and only slightly less so under G.W. Bush. Going back further, Bill Clinton was impeached in December 1988, by a GOP House that took power after the earthquake midterm elections of 1994. Politics has long become partisan warfare. It certainly seems even more intense now, because President Trump has upended all expectations since he announced his campaign in June 2015, and it's been a relentless roller coaster of political terror for the left ever since.

It's been, what, 11 days since the new regime took over? And with the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the populist-nationalist-conservative right is firing on all cylinders. It's unbelievable. The elation you're seeing even among raving critics of Trump during the campaign --- the "Never Trumpers" --- gives you a powerful idea of just how significant the victories for the right are at this moment. Leftists are being devastated. Hence, the Democrat-Media-Complex has a vested interest in portraying the intensity of partisan sniping as unprecedented. The pace is faster, sure, but that's about all. Trump never seems to sleep, and all the up and downs, the volleys and shots he throws across the bow of the collective left, are looking much more carefully choreographed than people thought possible during the campaign. He's just hammering the radical left!

All of this is absolutely breathtaking and I'm just floating right now. If Mitch McConnell announces the nuclear option to get Gorsuch confirmed, in the face of threats of a Democrat filibuster (and amid the boycott today on Trump's cabinet nominations) --- it's going to feel like the freakin' first time, man!

In any case, see perhaps the hardest hit, the New York Times, "A Jarring New Level of Confrontation and Conflict Hits Washington" (at Memeorandum):

WASHINGTON — President Trump made clear in his fiery inaugural speech that he was going to challenge the Washington establishment. Now the establishment is quickly pushing back, creating a palpable air of uncertainty and chaos in the opening days of his administration.

The new president fired an acting attorney general who refused to defend the administration’s executive order on immigration. Democrats on Tuesday boycotted Senate confirmation hearings to prevent votes on cabinet nominees. State Department employees opposed to the administration were urged to quit if they didn’t like Mr. Trump’s direction.

Even after years of unbreakable gridlock and unyielding partisanship, it was a jarring new level of confrontation and conflict, and it was contributing to a building sense of crisis just as the new president was to disclose the identity of a new Supreme Court nominee — a selection certain to further inflame tensions.

Republicans, adjusting to the new era, seemed blindsided by the rapid pace of events and the worrying failure of the new administration to engage in the information-sharing and consultation that would typically accompany the issuance of a potentially explosive proposal like the freeze on visas for refugees and immigrants from select countries.

“It’s regrettable that there was some confusion with the rollout,” Speaker Paul D. Ryan told reporters Tuesday, noting that top Republicans learned of the contents of the order only as it was being issued.

That secretive, closely held approach may be the preferred choice of the president and self-proclaimed disrupters like his senior adviser, Stephen K. Bannon, who is quickly emerging as the power in the West Wing, but not by more conventional politicians who definitely don’t like to be caught off guard.

Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said similar failings had emerged in the early days of previous administrations but would not be tolerated for long.

“You get a brief period you’re allowed for a learning curve, but after that, you have to get your act together,” Mr. King said.

One veteran of past Republican administrations, acknowledging the Trump White House was still in its “shakedown” phase, encouraged the president’s staff to focus more on consultation to avert confusion. “Process matters,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who served as chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. “You are dealing with not just senior management, but with a variety of constituencies and a board of directors of 535 people.”

Still, the main Republican objection seemed to be with the handling of the executive order by the inexperienced and understaffed White House rather than the actual content of the order...
Keep reading.

#PresidentTrump Nominates Conservative Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

Folks on Twitter can't be more ecstatic about this nomination. It's the home run of Supreme Court nominations, if the reaction is any guide.


Sebastian Gorka Joins the Trump Administration

I like this guy so much it's ridiculous.

Here's his book, at Amazon, Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War.

And on Twitter:


ICYMI: Eliot Cohen, The Big Stick

*BUMPED*

I'm going on an Amazon book splurge on the first of the month.

This one's at the top of my list.

At Amazon, Eliot Cohen, The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power and the Necessity of Military Force.

John Kenneth White, The Values Divide

*BUMPED.*

White's book is helpful to understanding our current predicament, although it starts out pre-Obama, so should be combined with more recent research on extreme political tribalism.

At Amazon, John Kenneth White, The Values Divide: American Politics and Culture In Transition.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Kate Upton Floats (VIDEO)

Well, yeah, she has natural flotation devices, heh.

Via Sports Illustrated:



Sensible Pause in U.S. Entry Policies

From Peter Brookes, at the Boston Herald, "Pause in U.S. entry policies sensible: Trump’s order targets countries with terror risks":
People will spin it anyway they like — and they will — but President Trump’s decision to take a pause and review travel to the United States from seven Middle Eastern and North African countries is sound national security policy.

It’s also completely defensible in these troubled times.

The presidential executive order will temporarily alter visa issuance, immigration and refugee flows to America from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen while U.S. entry programs are examined.

All of these countries have one thing in common: terrorism.

They may have a terrorist group operating within their borders or may have been slapped with the U.S. State Department’s State Sponsor of Terrorism designation as a country that uses terrorism or supports terrorist groups.

Of particular importance now is the Islamic State (aka ISIS) which, in my estimation, is in big trouble. The “caliphate” is under significant pressure in Syria and Iraq as forces close in on its key strongholds in Raqqa and Mosul.

For instance, Iraqi forces, with U.S. support, have made significant advances against ISIS since the battle for Mosul began last fall. The going is still tough, but Iraqi forces have reportedly taken back a good chunk of Iraq’s second largest city from ISIS fighters.

While Raqqa is still functioning as the Islamic State’s capital, tougher days are ahead for ISIS there. Syrian Kurdish and Arab forces, with U.S. help, are targeting the terrorist headquarters for a final assault.

But taking Raqqa won’t terminate ISIS...
More.

Open Dissent as State Department Staffers Sign Opposition Memo Against Trump

I tweeted earlier upon seeing WaPo's report:


And at Axios, "Hundreds of State employees to oppose Trump travel ban":
Brookings' Lawfare Blog obtained a copy of a draft memo created by "numerous Foreign Service officers and other diplomats" to express dissent to President Trump's executive order restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. Hundreds of foreign service officers are expected to be party to the memo, which will be submitted through the State Department's Dissent Channel.
Here's the piece at Lawfare, "BREAKING NEWS: Full Text of Draft Dissent Channel Memo on Trump Refugee and Visa Order."

It's hard to remove career bureaucrats. They can't easily be fired. But top people can, especially political appointees. So let's see how it goes over a State this week in terms of Trump's political apparatchiks. They might be able to offer the career staffers deals that can't refuse. Frankly, these long-term Foreign Service hacks are supposed to serve without fear or favor. They're supposed to carry out the policies of the elected administration. They're functionaries. And by dissenting they're violating the will of the American people who voted in a duly constituted election. This is how it works in this country. There should be consequences if this leftist charade goes on too long. Big consequences.

Via Memeorandum.

Debunking the Left's Despicable Attacks on Trump's Immigration Orders

Daniel Horowitz is the author of Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America.

He's got an awesome piece up at Conservative Review, "Separating Fact from Sickening Media Fiction on Trump's Immigration Executive Order."

This is bang-up phenomenal:

“Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever risque he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.” ~ Justice James Iredell, 1799.
There is a lot of confusion swirling around the events that transpired this weekend as a result of Trump’s executive order on immigration. Make no mistake: every word of Trump’s executive order is in accordance with statute. It’s important not to conflate political arguments with legal arguments, as many liberals and far too many “conservatives” on social media are doing. While the timing and coordination of implementing this order might have been poorly planned, we shouldn’t allow that to undermine the broader need to defend our sovereignty. For courts to violate years’ worth of precedent and steal our sovereignty should concern everyone.

What the order actually does

Among other things, the key provisions at the center of the existing controversy are as follows:

It shuts off the issuance of all new immigrant and non-immigrant visas for 90 days from the following seven volatile countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Any non-citizen from those seven countries (not “all” Muslim countries) is excluded from entering the country during this time-period (which usually means they won’t be able to board a direct flight to America). After 30 days, the secretary of state and secretary of homeland security must submit a report to completely revamp the vetting process going forward.

Within 60 days, countries will have to submit any information that the administration determines necessary, pursuant to the findings of this report, in order to adjudicate a visa application and ensure they are properly vetted. Any country that fails to submit this information will not be able to send foreign nationals to our country. All the while, the ban can be extended and expanded at any time.

In addition, the entire refugee resettlement program is suspended for four months pending a complete investigation of the program and a plan to restructure it and prioritize those who are truly in danger of religious persecution. After 120 days, the program may resume, but only for those countries Secretaries Kelly and Tillerson determine do not pose a threat. The program from Syria is completely suspended until the president personally gives the green light.

With regards to refugees and those who seek to enter from the seven countries temporarily excluded, the order gave discretion to the State Department and DHS to admit individuals on a case-by-case basis for important reasons, even during the temporary moratorium.

Statement of principles on the right of a country to exclude non-citizens

Those who want to immigrate: There is no affirmative right, constitutional or otherwise, to visit or settle in the United States. Period. Based on the social contract, social compact, sovereignty, long-standing law of nation-states, governance by the consent of the governed, the plenary power of Congress over immigration, and 200 years of case law, our political branches of government have the power to exclude or invite any individual or classes people for any reason on a temporary or even permanent basis – without any involvement from the courts.[1] Congress has already delegated its authority to the president to shut off any form of immigration at will at any time.

Immigrants already here: Those already admitted to this country with the consent of the citizenry have unalienable rights. They cannot be indefinitely detained. However, they can be deported for any reason if they are not citizens. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), which is still settled law, the court ruled that Congress has the same plenary power to deport aliens for any reason as it does to exclude them and that the statutory procedures and conditions for doing so are due process.[2] Congress has established the process for deportation of those already here. However, as long as a legal permanent resident leaves the country he has no affirmative right to re-enter.[3] Either way, they have absolutely no right to judicial review other than to ensure that statutes are properly followed.

But can Trump prevent those with green cards from re-entering the country?

The statute is clear as day. The Immigration and Nationality Act (§ 212(f)) gives the president plenary power to “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.” Clearly, the president has the authority to block any non-citizen – including refugees, green card holders, and foreign students – from entering the country. Also, for purposes of deportation, there is no difference between a green card holder or a holder of a non-immigrant visa. No foreign national who has not yet obtained citizenship has an affirmative right to re-enter the country...
Still more.

FLASHBACK: Suzy Cortez, Miss Bum Bum 2015, Body Paint for Barcelona

This ran last January, but it's worth a re-up.

At Egotastic!, "Miss Bum Bum Suzy Cortez Body Paint for Barcelona."

Also at the Sun U.K., "BONKERS FOR BUMBUM World Cup 2018: Miss BumBum Suzy Cortez poses in steamy photo shoot to celebrate Bonk the cheeky wolf being named official mascot; Russian Federation of football invited the Playboy babe to promote their new mascot in the best way possible."

Yep, she did a Playboy spread as well.

PREVIOUSLY: "Erika Canela, Brazil's 'Best Bottom' Winner, Gets Donald Trump Tattoo for Women's Rights."

ICYMI: James Campbell, Polarized

*BUMPED."

This is the one to read, in addition to John Kenneth White.

At Amazon, James Campbell, Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America.

Outrage! Pandemonium! Leftist Islamists Block Traffic at LAX (VIDEO)

Following-up, "Donald Trump's Refugee Ban Sparks Global Leftist Crisis."

At the Los Angeles Times, "Protesters block traffic at LAX as thousands rally against Trump travel ban."

More at CBS News 2 Los Angeles:




Trump Voters Shrug at Global Leftist Outrage Over Adminstration's Refugee Crackdown

Following-up, "Shock. Outrage. Resistance. Repeat."

Remember, it's leftists who're outraged. Everybody else is going about their lives. Normal Americans have jobs, for example.

At Instapundit, "SHOCKER: Trump Voters Shrug Off Global Uproar Over Immigration Ban."

#PresidentTrump's Alien Exclusion Order is Constitutional

At the Weekly Standard, "Alien Exclusion Order is Constitutional":
Over at National Review, Andrew McCarthy writes that President Trump's executive order instituting a temporary ban on entry into the United States for foreign nationals from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen is statutorily and constitutionally sound:
Under the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson wrote shortly after its adoption, "the transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It belongs then to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specifically submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly."

The rare exceptions Jefferson had in mind, obviously, were such matters as the approval of treaties, which Article II expressly vests in the Senate. There are also other textual bases for a congressional role in foreign affairs, such as Congress's power over international commerce, to declare war, and to establish the qualifications for the naturalization of citizens. That said, when Congress legislates in this realm, it must do so mindful of what the Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), famously described as "the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress."
McCarthy, a former U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case argues that the 1965 immigration act prohibiting discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin does not make Trump's order illegal:
With that as background, let's consider the claimed conflict between the president's executive order and Congress's statute. Mr. Bier asserts that Trump may not suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of specific countries because the 1965 immigration act "banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin." And, indeed, a section of that act, now codified in Section 1152(a) of Title 8, U.S. Code, states that (with exceptions not here relevant) "no person shall receive any preference or priority or 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" (emphasis added).

Even on its face, this provision is not as clearly in conflict with Trump's executive order as Bier suggests. As he correctly points out, the purpose of the anti-discrimination provision (signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965) was to end the racially and ethnically discriminatory "national origins" immigration practice that was skewed in favor of Western Europe. Trump's executive order, to the contrary, is in no way an effort to affect the racial or ethnic composition of the nation or its incoming immigrants. The directive is an effort to protect national security from a terrorist threat, which, as we shall see, Congress itself has found to have roots in specified Muslim-majority countries. Because of the national-security distinction between Trump's 2017 order and Congress's 1965 objective, it is not necessary to construe them as contradictory, and principles of constitutional interpretation counsel against doing so.
McCarthy also cites specific language in federal immigration law that specifically authorizes this kind of temporary restriction for national security purposes...
Keep reading.

Also at RCP.

Shock. Outrage. Resistance. Repeat.

Yep. That about sums things up.

It's going to be daily outrage and protests for the next four years.

What a time to be a leftist. Democrats will be hailing Trump for revitalizing their base, lol.

Via Katrina vanden Heuval, from the Washington Post, "Shock. Outrage. Resistance. Repeat. Is this the new normal in Trump’s America?":

In Donald Trump’s America, there may be no more weekends — just an incessant cycle of shocks, of actions and reactions. For the second weekend in a row, Friday to Sunday was wall to wall with resistance and outrage.

On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order banning people from seven nations in the Middle East and Africa from entering the United States.

On Saturday, protesters began heading to the airports to welcome international travelers, some of whom were detained for hours without access to lawyers.

On Sunday, thousands pushed peacefully against the fences around the White House in protest of Trump’s order. The signs spelled out embarrassment and resolve — and a cheeky self-awareness that only Washington can muster.

“SHAME ON AMERICA.”

“DEATH TO FASCISM.”

“PROTEST IS THE NEW BRUNCH.”

Is this what we’re in for, even on weekends? Will every news alert force us to ask ourselves who we are or send us out into the streets in a spontaneous counterattack?
Yes. The left is all about perpetual outrage. Meanwhile, the rest of us go about our lives while the White House restores are sovereignty.

Sheesh.

(Still more.)

Donald Trump's Refugee Ban Sparks Global Leftist Crisis

Look, I'm not having a crisis. My wife and kids aren't having a crisis. If you're a regular taxpaying American citizen you're not having a crisis. You can come and go. It's leftists who're having a crisis. The cosmopolitan globetrotting left is in crisis as the Trump administration takes back control of our borders.

So, yeah, Charles Schumer, cry me a river, you freakin' dweeb.

I mean, c'mon, just look at the jihadist taking over LAX. We're about to knock off Mecca as the jihad capital, sheesh.

At LAT, "Confusion reigns at U.S. airports as protests of Trump executive order enter second day":


With protesters’ chants echoing through arrival halls and beyond, confusion prevailed Sunday at airports across the United States amid seemingly contradictory signals from the Trump administration over a hotly contested executive order blocking U.S. entry to refugees and nationals of seven Muslim-majority nations.

Even as the White House defended the directive’s rollout as a success, advocacy groups and administration officials remained locked on an apparent collision course. Since its signing on Friday, the measure has led to the detention of more than 100 people landing at airports across the country with valid entry documents.

About twice as many others were denied permission to board flights to the United States, according to lawyers representing a consortium of groups that won a temporary nationwide stay Saturday night against the deportation of anyone who had arrived with a valid visa.

On the ground, backlash to the ban grew. While major international airports were the locus of protests, thousands rallied in cities including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Boston.

Despite the air of gravity surrounding debate over the ban, the atmosphere at many airport rallies was raucous and cheerful. Whenever anyone was released from detention, he or she was greeted with cheers and applause from well-wishers.

At Los Angeles International Airport, thousands of protesters filled the lobby at the Tom Bradley International Terminal and spilled into the street outside, chanting, "Let them in!" and "Love, not hate, makes America great."

Jacob Kemper, a 35-year-old Army veteran who served two tours in Iraq, said he was infuriated to think soldiers he fought alongside might be denied entry to the country.

"I really don't care about religion, but I really hate oppression," he said, holding a sign that read, "I Fought Next To Muslims."

Shay Soltani, a network engineer, fled the Iranian revolution 40 years ago and still has family members in Iran. She joined Sunday’s protest in Los Angeles, she said, because she doesn't know if she will be able to see them again, thanks to Trump’s order.

"I am so hurt by this," she said. "He is against freedom of speech and the Constitution and everything I believe in as an American."

Groups including the American Civil Liberties Union said they would ultimately press to have Trump’s order overturned as unconstitutional.

In the meantime, the emergency stay issued by a federal judge in Brooklyn on Saturday represented an “absolute baseline” prohibiting the removal of any of those who were halted upon arrival, said Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

But it remained essentially the luck of the draw in terms of who was halted upon arrival, who was released after questioning, and who had access to legal counsel if detained, the lawyers said.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

Branco Cartoons photo Darkness-600-LI_zps8wobyeuk.jpg

And at Theo's, "Cartoon Round Up..."

Cartoon Credit: Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – Sees Only Evil."

Sunday Night Rule 5

I've been reviewing files all day for the new full-time political science position at my college.

Plus, Sarah Hoyt's got me 'lanched today, for this post, "The National Elite Nervous Breakdown," which is way cool.

So I've been procrastinating on my Sunday Rule 5. Here's a quickie for consistency, in any case.

At the Other McCain, "Rule 5 Sunday: Making Anime Great Again."

Also, at the Pirate's Cove, "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup," and "If All You See……is an area flooding from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist."

And at 90 Miles from Tyranny, "Morning Mistress - Business Undress...", and "Girls With Guns."

Plus, at Odie's, "Boob Pong ~OR~ Rule 5 Woodsterman Style."

At Knuckledraggin', "Luis will go for this."

And from the Hostages, "BBF Victory Lap 2016: Big Boobs Milana Vayntrub."

Still more, at Drunken Stepfather, "STEPLINKS OF THE DAY."

Don't forget Goodstuff's, "GOODSTUFFs BLOGGING MAGAZINE (278th Issue) - Candy Barr."

More Rule 5 blogging later.


Trump Creates Chaos!

Heh.

I wonder if the chaos is the blow to the system more so than the promise-keeping itself, although the headline writer at USA Today isn't especially clear:

From Susan Page (who I like), "Analysis: Trump's start creates chaos by doing what he promised":

WASHINGTON — New presidents typically start with a flurry of actions designed to demonstrate to supporters and opponents alike that they will deliver on their campaign promises, and that there is a new guy in charge.

But never in modern times — a phrase that Donald Trump has made familiar in his opening 10 days in the White House — has there been a whirlwind of action that has so disrupted the political order. President Trump has opened a breach with Mexico over building a wall, created chaos at U.S. airports by blocking immigrants from Muslim countries, moved to undercut the Affordable Care Act even before Congress formally resumes debate over repealing it and more.

In other words, after a campaign that upended political assumptions, Trump has grabbed the headlines and prompted protests in the streets and the courts by doing precisely what he said he would do if elected.

"We've been in office now for about seven or eight days, and we've done an incredible amount," White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation after deflecting questions on the orders to begin building a wall along the southern border and to temporarily block refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries. "I think that one thing people can say about President Trump is that he's following through on his promises, and I don't think people should be surprised that he's doing it. I'm kind of surprised that people are surprised that he's actually conducting himself exactly the way he said he would."

It has been a surprise to those who assumed candidate Trump had more of a combative attitude than a specific policy plan. That gave rise to the observation, first credited to Saleno Zito of The Atlantic, that Trump's supporters took him seriously but not literally, while journalists took him literally but not seriously.

What's also surprised many is the speed with which Trump has moved, in some cases reportedly without the traditional consultation with members of his Cabinet, leaders of Congress or even the government lawyers who customarily would review the language and legal basis for the executive orders and presidential memorandums he has signed with fanfare.

Of course, presidents who have taken over at times of crisis have acted in the past with far-reaching actions and left it to the future for the courts and the critics to sort out. Franklin Roosevelt, taking over during the depths of the Great Depression, on the day after being inaugurated in 1933 declared a bank holiday and called Congress into special session. When he took office in 1861, Abraham Lincoln was dealing with a nation being split by Southern secession.

This time, though, Trump isn't taking over at a time of war or economic calamity. He has in effect created his own sense of crisis, a situation he seems to find useful when it comes to dominating the debate and conducting negotiations.

And while FDR coined the idea of the "first 100 days" as a measure for decisive action, Trump seems to be speeding up even that timetable — akin to his mode of unprecedented and instantaneous presidential communication via the burst of 140-character tweets...
More.

The Democrats' Rise Is Far From Inevitable

Well, rising Democrats are more than far from inevitable the way things have been going this last week, with a collective leftist temper tantrum practically equal to an extinction level event, a Democrat Party extinction, lol.

From Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg:

Why are the left's public demonstrations more impressive than its voter turnout? Because there are a whole lot of Democrats in the large population centers where such demonstrations are generally held. People can join a protest simply by getting on the subway; it's an easy show of force.

But there are a lot of small towns in America, and as Sean Trende and David Byler recently demonstrated, those small towns are redder than ever. Effectively, the Democratic coalition has self-gerrymandered into a small number of places where they can turn out an impressive number of feet on the ground, but not enough votes to win the House. Certainly not enough to win the Senate or the Electoral College, which both favor sparsely populated states and discount the increasingly dense parts of the nation.

The Senate map in 2018 is brutal for Democrats. If Democrats want to get their mojo back, they’re going to need to do more than get a small minority of voters to turn out for a march. They’re going to need to get back some of those rural votes.

To do that, they’re probably going to have to let go of the most soul-satisfying, brain-melting political theory of the last two decades: that Democrats are inevitably the Party of the Future, guaranteed ownership of the future by an emerging Democratic majority in minority-white America. This theory underlay a lot of Obama’s presidency, and Clinton’s campaign. With President Trump's inauguration on Friday, we saw the results.

Why was this such a bad theory? Let me count the ways...

Heh, that's the best.

Keep reading.

Sistine Stallone LOVE Advent Alternative Version (VIDEO)

Well, I suppose she does deserve a second go at it.

Via LOVE:



PREVIOUSLY: "Sistine Stallone LOVE Advent 2016 (VIDEO)."

Faith Goldy: Hey Feminists, Straight Up, You're Getting Pranked by Islam (VIDEO)

She's a cool chick.

Funny.

At the Rebel:


ICYMI: Alexander Hill, The Red Army and the Second World War

*BUMPED.*

This book's great. I just need more time to get further into it.

ICYMI, at Amazon, Alexander Hill, The Red Army and the Second World War.

Daily Beast Editor Christopher Dickey: 'We've Been Spared Fascism, Up Until Now...' (VIDEO)

They still don't get it.

Leftist elites don't get it, and they're going to flail themselves right into a second Trump administration until they do.

From Mark Finklestein, at Legal Insurrection, "Daily Beast editor: Non-Cosmopolitan Rural Voters For Trump are the ‘Real Problem’."

Dickey used to be at Newsweek, which oughta tell you something, lol.


A Clarifying Moment in American History

From Professor Eliot Cohen, at the Atlantic, "There should be nothing surprising about what the Donald Trump has done in his first week—but he had underestimated the resilience of Americans and their institutions":
I am not surprised by President Donald Trump’s antics this week. Not by the big splashy pronouncements such as announcing a wall that he would force Mexico to pay for, even as the Mexican foreign minister held talks with American officials in Washington. Not by the quiet, but no less dangerous bureaucratic orders, such as kicking the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff out of meetings of the Principals’ Committee, the senior foreign-policy decision-making group below the president, while inserting his chief ideologist, Steve Bannon, into them. Many conservative foreign-policy and national-security experts saw the dangers last spring and summer, which is why we signed letters denouncing not Trump’s policies but his temperament; not his program but his character.

We were right. And friends who urged us to tone it down, to make our peace with him, to stop saying as loudly as we could “this is abnormal,” to accommodate him, to show loyalty to the Republican Party, to think that he and his advisers could be tamed, were wrong. In an epic week beginning with a dark and divisive inaugural speech, extraordinary attacks on a free press, a visit to the CIA that dishonored a monument to anonymous heroes who paid the ultimate price, and now an attempt to ban selected groups of Muslims (including interpreters who served with our forces in Iraq and those with green cards, though not those from countries with Trump hotels, or from really indispensable states like Saudi Arabia), he has lived down to expectations.

Precisely because the problem is one of temperament and character, it will not get better. It will get worse, as power intoxicates Trump and those around him. It will probably end in calamity—substantial domestic protest and violence, a breakdown of international economic relationships, the collapse of major alliances, or perhaps one or more new wars (even with China) on top of the ones we already have. It will not be surprising in the slightest if his term ends not in four or in eight years, but sooner, with impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment. The sooner Americans get used to these likelihoods, the better...
Interesting, and not all that disagreeable. And I find the talk of impeachment and exercising the 25th Amendment rather humorous.

Frankly, it's mostly humor that's the antidote to all the leftist hair-raising hysteria. Repeat after me: It's gonna be fine. It's all good. Take the day off from politics and you'll see that your life hasn't changed much at all.

Still more, at Memeorandum.

And don't forget Cohen's book, The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power and the Necessity of Military Force.

'It's going to be a long and terrible four years...'

Ah, the nectar of leftist tears. I've gotta get me one of those cups!

On Twitter:


These two are responding to a Facebook post from Clemson Professor Nazanin Zinouri, whining about being "deported" by the Trump administration. I mean, how stupid can you get? You fly to Iran to visit your mom when President Trump is in the midst of issuing a raft of executive orders. I guess leftists aren't used to a president that keeps his word.

Federal Judge Halts Part of President Trump's Immigration Order; Stops Deportation of Refugees (VIDEO)

Trump's going to win. Some of his executive order may be struck down, especially the ban on return entry for green card holders, but he's going to win. It's the executive's authority to implement immigration laws. We're in for big changes, and for all the hand-wringing, they will be far-reaching.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Federal judge blocks deportations under Trump's 'extreme vetting' order for refugees and others with valid visas":

After a day of chaos at airports around the world, a federal judge in Brooklyn on Saturday night stayed deportations under President Trump’s executive order barring citizens of some Muslim countries from entering the United States.

U.S. District Judge Ann M. Donnelly ordered a halt to any removal of refugees or others who hold valid visas to enter the United States — meaning those who have arrived at U.S. airports from the seven predominantly Muslim countries named under the president’s executive order can remain, for now.

The judge did not rule on the legality of the executive order, nor did she say that others who have not yet arrived in the U.S. can be allowed to proceed.

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two Iraqis detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York: Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who was an interpreter for the U.S. military, and Haider Alshawi, who was on his way to join his wife, who had worked for a U.S. contractor in Iraq.

ACLU attorneys argued that returning either petitioner could cause “irreparable harm” by exposing them and their families to retaliation from extremists.

The two lead plaintiffs were held by authorities and threatened with deportation, even though both “assert a fear of returning to their countries, and if they are not admitted pursuant to their valid entry documents, [they] seek an opportunity to pursue asylum,” the lawyers argued in the emergency petition.

“This ruling preserves the status quo and ensures that people who have been granted permission to be in this country are not illegally removed off U.S. soil," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case.

The executive order Trump signed Friday suspends all refugee entries for 120 days, blocks Syrian refugees indefinitely and bars for 90 days the entry of citizens from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia.

While the court did not take on the legal merits of that action, the judge’s order said the Trump administration and its employees are  “enjoined and restrained from the commission of further acts of and misconduct in violation of the Constitution.”

“The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed under the United States Constitution,” the court ruled.

Surrounded by a throng of cheering demonstrators, who had rushed from Kennedy airport to the Brooklyn courthouse, an exultant Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said, ``This was a remarkable day. What we’ve shown today is that the courts can work. They are a bulwark in our democracy when President Trump enacts laws or executive order that are unconstitutional and illegal.’’
Keep reading.


Venus and Serena Williams, the Civil Rights Icons of Our Age

Following-up, "Will Serena Throw Australian Open Title to Venus?"

Well, she obviously didn't throw it, although I didn't watch, being as the match was on at like 12:30am.

No matter. The sisters from Compton have lots more tennis in them.

At WSJ:


Saturday, January 28, 2017

Do You Want More Trump?

Here's Glenn Reynolds with a roundup on the leftist reaction to President Trump's executive order on refugees, at Instapundit, "Do you want more Trump? Because explosive anger mixed with sanctimony is how you get more Trump":
OBAMA DID A 6-MONTH IMMIGRATION PAUSE ON IRAQ, NOBODY CARED. TRUMP DOES A 3-MONTH PAUSE ON A LIST OF COUNTRIES THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUT TOGETHER AND HE’S LITERALLY HITLER. The Green Card thing is genuinely horrible, but that’s not even what people are going apeshit about.

And Trump’s fine with that, because it will play badly, and he knows it.
Click through for the tweet roundup.

Danielle Gersh's Warm Weather Forecast

Ms. Danielle's the new weekend meteorologist at CBS News 2 Los Angeles. She's a sweetie.

And it was beautiful warm weather today. Almost like summer. Weird too, after all the blustery winter weather of the last week.