Closing Thought–26Jun18

So many people are wondering why the evangelicals are quiet over what the president is doing because they see that it flies in the face of the beliefs of Christianity…..there is an easy answer……they want Trump to appoint those judges that will do the bidding so they can have their way with abortions and forcing their Christian beliefs on the country……

Well the most recent ruling but SCOTUS shows the value of having activists judges on the court……the most recent ruling was on the Trump travel ban………

The Supreme Court has just delivered a major victory to President Trump by upholding his travel ban, reports Politico. The justices split 5-4 along the usual lines, with the conservative majority winning the day. The court actually upheld the president’s third version of his ban, this one issued last fall and originally barring travelers from eight countries, reports the Washington Post. The eight were Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, Venezuela, and North Korea, though Chad was later removed. Six of those countries have Muslim majorities, but the White House insisted to the court that it was not a “Muslim ban.” The state of Hawaii and other challengers disagreed and argued, unsuccessfully, that Trump had exceeded his executive authority with the move.

“SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!,” tweeted Trump after the news broke. The decision ends more than a year of legal arguments about a key component of the president’s immigration policy, notes NBC News. Trump put his first travel ban into effect soon after taking office, but it caused chaos in airports and met stiff resistance in courtrooms. The second iteration didn’t fare much better, but the third has now succeeded. The ban has been in effect since December, when the Supreme Court allowed it to take effect while the legal case played out.

Not to worry there is more……..

The Supreme Court delivered good news on Tuesday to faith-based pregnancy centers that oppose abortion. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices blocked key provisions of a California law requiring the clinics to inform patients about low-cost abortions provided elsewhere, reports the Los Angeles Times. While the court did not strike down all of the law, it returned the case to lower courts, with Clarence Thomas writing in his majority opinion that challengers were “likely to succeed.” He concluded that forcing the clinics to talk to patients about abortions probably violates their free-speech rights, reports the AP. “California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it,” Thomas wrote. Chief Justice John Roberts joined him, along with Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

The law went into effect in 2016 after lawmakers raised concerns that the anti-abortion pregnancy centers were using “intentionally deceptive advertising and counseling practices,” per the LAT. The law was two-pronged, explains NPR. If a center was unlicensed, it had to make that fact prominently known, including in signs and advertising. If the center was licensed but did not provide abortions, it had to post signs saying that the procedures were provided by the state. While the law affects only California clinics, the court ruling could have ramifications in other states. However, as USA Today notes, that might actually be good news for those who support the right to have an abortion. For example, the ruling could possibly be used to strike down laws in conservative states requiring women to have ultrasounds before an abortion.

This is what you get when activist judges are the priority for appointment to the Supreme Court…..

I will be out of pocket tomorrow……I will explain in tomorrow’s post…..chuq

Advertisements

Closing Thought–15Jun18

No need to sweat the implementation of Sharia Law in the US…..because we have own version of the stupidity…..

But first our AG has made it clear where the laws of this country will be governed from……

Attorney General Jeff Sessions cited the Bible on Thursday in defense of his border policy, which is resulting in hundreds of immigrant children being separated from their parents after they enter the US illegally. Sessions, speaking in Fort Wayne, Ind., on immigration, pushed back against criticism he had received over the policy, reports the AP. On Wednesday, a cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church said that separating mothers from their babies was “immoral.” Sessions said many of the recent criticisms were unfair and some contrary to law. “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” he said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”

Last month, the attorney general announced a “zero tolerance” policy that any adult who enters the country illegally will be criminally prosecuted. US protocol prohibits detaining children with their parents because the children are not charged with a crime and the parents are. According to US Customs and Border Protection, more than 650 children were separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border during a two-week period in May. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday that she hadn’t seen Sessions’ comments but affirmed that the Bible did back up the administration’s actions. “I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. That is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible,” she said. “It’s a moral policy to follow and enforce the law.”

No religious text should decide what the laws should say…..a guideline maybe….but word for word…NEVER!

This is silly!  NO child should be separated from its mother/father for any reason….this smacks of the old concentration camp days…..I for one do not want my country thought of in those terms.

There are more and more policies that are smacking of authoritarianism……this is just one or many…..

As our country slides into an ugly Americanized form of neofascism, there’s good news: nonviolent protest, when in the service of progressive, egalitarian goals, almost always wins out when it reaches a national critical mass. And we may well be on the verge of that right now. But we must understand what we’re up against.

Donald Trump and his neo-authoritarian acolytes are following an ancient playbook.

Part Machiavelli, part Caesar, part Mugabe/Duterte/Mao, it always includes a few simple and primary elements of seizing and subverting normal political power.

https://www.alternet.org/right-wing/9-ways-trumps-authoritarianism-taking-hold

Of course this cannot be with Trump running things right?

How does bullsh*t sound?

It was one particular remark about Kim Jong Un, however, that has raised the most eyebrows: “He speaks and his people sit up in attention. I want my people to do the same.” When asked by a reporter after the interview what he meant by that, Trump replied, “I’m kidding, you don’t understand sarcasm.” Watch the interview in full here and here.

Anybody that favors dictators to western democrats is just a budding fascist…whether joking or not.

Meanwhile back to the children…….

This is disgraceful and needs to be reversed as soon as possible…..but do not count on Congress that bag of manure will be no help…..the ballot box is the only hope these children have….it is the only hope this country has……I will do my part….will you?

What Is The ‘National Guard’?

My Closing Thought–12Apr18

The big story last week was that Pres. Trump has ordered the National Guard to the border to fight immigration problems…..my thinking is that the National Guard is under the control of the state and the reserves controlled by the federal government…..

Is my thinking accurate?

President Donald Trump recently announced his plan to dispatch National Guard troops to the southern border to assist with security efforts.

The Army National Guard is the oldest defense force in the nation, formed in 1636 as three militia regiments in the Massachusetts Bay Colony armed to defend against the Pequot Indians.

The actual term “National Guard” was first used in 1824 for New York state militia units who wished to honor the Marquis de Lafayette and his French National Guard. The title was officially adopted in 1903 and describes the force which, unusually, falls under both federal and state control.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/04/10/remind_us_what_exactly_is_the_national_guard_113304.html

Did this answer any questions that you may have about the use of the National Guard?

Closing Thought–05Apr18

Trump has a new plan to control the flow of immigrants across our border all coming for free stuff.  His brilliant plan is to use the National Guard as a deterrent….

Since Congress has not authorized their use what will their deployment entail?

Pesident Donald Trump and border-state governors are working to “irmmediately” deploy the National Guard to the US-Mexico border to fight illegal immigration, with some troops potentially arriving later Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said. “The threat is real,” Nielsen said at an afternoon briefing, adding that Trump was signing a proclamation to put the deployment into effect. “It’s time to act.” The announcement came hours after Trump pledged “strong action today” on immigration and a day after he said he wants to use the military to secure the southern border until his “big, beautiful wall” is erected, the AP reports. In a tweet early Wednesday, Trump said that “Our Border Laws are very weak” and that Democrats “stand in our way” of new laws. He added, “We will be taking strong action today.”

Federal law prohibits the use of active-duty service members for law enforcement inside the US, unless specifically authorized by Congress. But over the past 12 years, presidents have twice sent National Guard troops to the border to bolster security and assist with surveillance and other support. The White House counsel’s office has been working on the idea for several weeks, according to a senior official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal plans. Nielsen said the administration was considering a model similar to a 2006 operation in which President George W. Bush deployed National Guard troops to the southern border, with a focus on assisting US Customs and Border Protection personnel. “We are anxious to have the support,” she said.

This could be a violation of the “Posse Comitatus Act”…..the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act, passed in response to the use of federal troops to enforce reconstruction policies in the southern states, prohibited the use of the U.S. Army to enforce laws unless the Constitution or an act of Congress explicitly authorized such use. This act was amended five times in the 1980s, largely to allow for the use of military resources to combat trafficking in illicit narcotics.

But each time Congress has had to vote on the use of US military personnel.  But as usual this president seems to think that he is above the Constitution.

How much further can this president push before the Congress grows a spine and pushes back?

Closing Thought–04Dec17

A few weeks ago the Right Wing media was all outraged by the senseless attack on some ICE agents on the border….it was so damn important that it lead Fearless Fosdick to Tweet out his outrage at this savage attack by those damn “illegals”….this went on for a couple of days until something else popped up to grab the Right wing’s attention….like a shiny set of keys.

I want to know if they are so dedicated to the “truth” how they will handle this news…..

A Texas sheriff who was among the first people to reach two badly injured US Border Patrol agents said he thinks they were hurt in an accident, not an attack, the AP reports. The injured agents were found Nov. 18 next to Interstate 10 near Van Horn, which is about 30 miles from the border with Mexico. Agent Rogelio Martinez succumbed to traumatic head injuries and broken bones. His partner, who has not been identified, was seriously injured and hospitalized for several days. The agent has no memory of what happened that night. Culberson County Sheriff Oscar Carrillo said he thinks a tractor-trailer may have accidentally sideswiped the pair, the Dallas Morning News reported. I-10 is a heavily traveled route for truck drivers and accidents regularly occur, Carrillo said.

“From the beginning we were radioed to assist in the incident as an injury, not an assault,” Carrillo said. “If this was an assault, believe me, as sheriff, I’d be the first one out there emphasizing safety in our community and with our deputies.” It’s not clear why Martinez and his partner were along the highway and US Customs and Border Protection only said in a statement that they “were responding to activity.” A Border Patrol union, the National Border Patrol Council, has said the pair was attacked and struck with a rock or rocks. President Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also have said the two were attacked. Special Agent in Charge Emmerson Buie Jr. in the FBI’s El Paso office said last week that investigators were treating the incident as a “potential assault,” but they could not rule out other scenarios.

Don’t bother looking for they will ignore this news and just keep push their brand of hate and vile….as always…..they got their hate out of the original story….so no need to report on the rest of the story if it craps on their hate filled rants.

The Wall – An In-Depth Examination

It’s the WALL…..again.

WE have been having this back and forth about a promise that President Trump first made on his 2016 campaign…..a “big, beautiful wall” across our Southern border.

Since he first uttered the slogan there has been a massive amount of ink wasted on the analysis on what he has meant by his assertion.

Most people know what their “party” thinks about the Wall….very little has been written about a total analysis of the issue…..

Maybe this would help….that is if you are truly interested in the issue or you just like the concept….for whatever reason……..

A USA TODAY NETWORK special report examines the impact of Trump’s proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall, exploring every foot of the 2,000-mile boundary.

“Build the Wall.” Three words energized a campaign.

But could it be done? What would it cost? What would it accomplish? Our search for answers became this, a landmark new report, “The Wall.”

The task was massive. We flew the entire border, drove it too. More than 30 reporters and photographers interviewed migrants, farmers, families, tribal members — even a human smuggler. We joined Border Patrol agents on the ground, in a tunnel, at sea. We patrolled with vigilantes, walked the line with ranchers. We scoured government maps, fought for property records.

In this report, you can watch aerial video of every foot of the border, explore every piece of fence, even stand at the border in virtual reality. Still, breakthrough technology would mean nothing if it didn’t help us better understand the issues — and one another.

Source: The Wall – An in-depth examination of Donald Trump’s border wall

Personally, I believe that an article like this would have served a greater purpose if it had been publish during the primaries…..

Deal Or No Deal?

Many Americans are applauding the new found cooperation between a GOP president and the Congressional Dems……but since the “good news” was release there has been a wealth of back and forth……

It is confusing…..so do we have a deal?  Or Not?

The Congressional Dems seem to think that there is a deal….

In a move that stunned many Republicans, Democratic leaders announced Wednesday night that they had reached a deal with President Trump to protect Dreamers from deportation in return for funding extra border security—but not a wall. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced the deal after a White House dinner, the AP reports. “We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides,” they said in a joint statement. A source says the deal also includes a pathway to citizenship for the almost 800,000 young immigrants involved.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted that DACA and border security were discussed at the meeting, though “excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to,” the Los Angeles Times reports. This is the second time in two weeks that Trump has bypassed Republicans to cut a deal with Democrats and immigration hardliners are furious over what they see as an amnesty, the Washington Post reports. If reports of the deal are true, Trump’s “base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair,” said GOP Rep. Steve King. “No promise is credible.” Breitbart.com called the deal a “full-fledged cave” and dubbed the president “Amnesty Don.”

The with a flick of the thumbs Pres. Trump is saying that there is NO deal…..

Thursday morning brings a dose of confusion to the debate over the fate of young undocumented immigrants. President Trump tweeted that he and top Democrats had not reached a deal about the fate of the Dreamers, despite Democrats’ assertion Wednesday night to the contrary. “No deal was made last night on DACA,” the president wrote, referring to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. “Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent.” All this began when Democrats including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer had a dinner meeting with Trump at the White House on Wednesday, and Democrats emerged afterward to declare that they’d struck a deal to “enshrine the protections of DACA into law.” In exchange, they’d agree to a number of border security improvements—excluding the president’s proposed border wall.

Almost immediately, the White House pushed back on that characterization, with press chief Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeting that no deal to exclude the border wall was struck, reports the New York Times. Trump reiterated that in his tweet, adding that the wall “will continue to be built.” (He didn’t, however, address whether funding would be linked to DACA.) But the president also expressed support for Dreamers and suggested that he wanted a deal that would provide some kind of pathway to citizenship for them. “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!” hewrote. “They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own – brought in by parents at young age.”

I for one am pleased to see some small incident of cooperation between the two parties……but with all my cheer leading…… is there a Deal or Not?

How long will this “cooperation” last?