Pages

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

As suspected...


There were twelve responses from liberals on the previous post that offered a straight forward challenge. Not one of those responses actually even attempted to address the challenge.

34 comments:

KD, CHT Gets a standing O said...

We know. It was clearly too tough for them to address.

Nicely done CHT.

rrb said...



i'm having a very hard time keeping up with all the democrat temper tantrums as of late.

perhaps you could put up a temper tantrum scorecard post so we can start to compile them in terms of outrage category:

soros-funded vs. organic/grassroots, cabinet confirmation tantrums, violent/non-violent, celebrity-led vs. garden variety asshats...

the list goes on and on.

KD said...

Dovos looks like she may be stopped by the Tantrum Throwers.

Roger Amick said...

Al Franken isn’t a punch line in the Sen­ate any­more. He’s emerged as one of the Demo­crats’ most ag­gress­ive and ef­fect­ive ques­tion­ers of Pres­id­ent Trump’s Cab­in­et nom­in­ees. He’s gen­er­ated nu­mer­ous made-for-TV clips as one of the few Demo­crats will­ing to go full-bore against his party’s top tar­gets—Jeff Ses­sions, Tom Price, and Betsy De­Vos. He’s fi­nally show­ing some per­son­al­ity in the Sen­ate, punc­tu­ated by his laugh-out-loud ex­change with En­ergy Sec­ret­ary-des­ig­nate Rick Perry. And he’ll be one of nine Demo­crats on the Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee ques­tion­ing Trump’s Su­preme Court nom­in­ee, Neil Gor­such. This is Al Franken’s mo­ment in the spot­light, and if he chooses, he could par­lay his good for­tune in­to a bid for the pres­id­ency in 2020.

As to your questions.

1: This is the first time the law has been challenged on the basis of
Constitutionality. The ninth district court will respond later today or tomorrow.


2: "prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

First of all (ironically) this amendment allow for discrimination based on religion, politics, or ideology.

This is your interpretation of this law. The refusal of visas based on religion, politics, or ideology is in dispute with the executive order again, is:This is the first time the law has been challenged on the basis of Constitutionality. The ninth district court will respond later today or tomorrow.

Several states attorneys general have stated that they believe the executive order is unconstitutional.

We may see two outcomes. One is a blanket rejection based upon the Constitution. Two, it may be particularly divided. Those with green cards, are already legal residents can't be prohibited from reentry. Those coming on travel visas may be required to undergo vetting.

Happy now?

Or maybe a drunken rant? The obsession with my recovery is rather weird.

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
Al Franken isn’t a punch line in the Sen­ate any­more.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

yes he is. if your 2020 hopes have been reduced to the promotion of a comedian, you guys might just be in trouble.



Several states attorneys general have stated that they believe the executive order is unconstitutional.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

yup, and they are being led by the hackiest of hack-tastic partisan hacks, my very own AG:

"Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, issued a statement Sunday saying he and his colleagues in 15 other states representing 130 million Americans and foreign residents “are confident that the Executive Order will ultimately be struck down by the courts.” The attorneys general said they would work together to ensure the federal government “does not unlawfully target anyone because of their national origin or faith.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scholars-many-more-legal-challenges-likely-for-trumps-executive-order-on-immigration/2017/01/29/2801ffee-e64b-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.6f87bb43fea5



one would hope that if you had a legal issue with the order that you would provide an actual legal challenge. you know, with detail and case law supporting it.

"because i said so" is a tactic used by parents with small children. not by lawyers with an actual case.

a simple proclamation that it's "unconstitutional" is a mistake that any decent 1 L student would not make.

if you want to be taken seriously rog, muster a legal argument. that would not include a copy/paste from a far left assclown.

i must say, i'm impressed by how shameless the left has become since having their asses handed to them on election day. the fact that you would be willing to import scumbags from states sponsoring terrorism just to inflate your voter rolls is chilling. the collateral damage of dead innocent american citizens is a price worth paying to claw your way back to power, eh?

nice.



rrb said...



A group of Democratic attorneys general is condemning President Trump’s immigration and travel crackdown. The AGs from 15 states and Washington, D.C., promise to “use all of the tools of our offices to fight this unconstitutional order and preserve our nation’s national security and core values.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/16-attorneys-general-to-fight-trump-immigration-ban/



democrats all, desperately seeking relevance in a nation that has effectively told the democrat party to get lost.


rrb said...



The main principle underlying Trump’s executive order is that the political branches of the federal government have plenary authority over border security, particularly as it pertains to aliens who could pose a threat. There is little or no legitimate role for the courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that “it is undoubtedly within the power of the Federal Government to exclude aliens from the country,” and that even American citizens and their belongings may be searched without judicial warrants due to the sovereign imperative of “national self-protection.” (I’m quoting the Court’s 1973 decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, which cites many of the Court’s relevant precedents.)

To summarize: Since (a) aliens have no enforceable judicial right to enter the U.S.; (b) the president has constitutional authority to act against potential foreign threats to national security; and (c) Congress, which has indisputable power to prescribe the requirements for alien entry into the country, has delegated to the president sweeping power to deny the entry of aliens whose presence – in the president’s judgment – would be detrimental to the U.S., that should be the end of the matter. The matter is outside judicial responsibility and there is therefore nothing for the courts legitimately to review.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444670/travel-ban-anthony-kennedy

Roger Amick said...

The only copy and paste was from CH. Lying asshole. The rest was me, I did not copy or even look outside. I have a functional brain. Yours is too filled with hate.

Roger Amick said...

Note CH.

The only responses from your BFF rrb was a copy and paste.

rrb said...



be that as it may roger, you have still failed to explain why you would risk the safety and sovereignty of our nation for the sole purpose of inflating your voter rolls with imported jihadists. because that is in fact your only goal here.

look, i get the fact that your electoral butthurt must be massive, and that there's not enough ass balm available out there to ease the pain, but to willfully commit such an enormous breach of our national security just so you can poke trump in the eye?

now THAT is fucked up on a galactic scale.

i'm left to assume that you guys might just secretly enjoy being out of power, because it's hard to otherwise explain such irrational behavior.

rrb said...



desperately seeking moral equivalency...


According to a CBS poll, a majority of Democrats have said that they believe that the religion of Islam is dangerous, but that other religions are just as bad.

66 percent of Democrats believe when it comes to other religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, et al, they are responsible for just as much violence as Islam. Only 14 percent believe Islam is more violent, which totals out to one out of seven Democrats.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/06/new-cbs-poll-shows-that-majority-of-democrats-consider-christianity-as-violent-as-islam/



queue the "but tim mcveigh was a christian dammit!!!11!" outbursts.



wphamilton said...

What do you call this, but a straightforward response to your challenge??

wphamilton said...
"Any takers? "

You lose that bet, because I agree that the President does have that authority and that it's a good idea to increase restrictions on who is entering the country.

However, I think that Trump's implementation is a bad idea and poorly executed. Too broad, too drastic. Surely there are some criteria that can be applied to filter out the potentially most dangerous individuals.

Roger Amick said...

Trumpism of the day

Yesterday speaking to U.S. servicemembers at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida

The president began talking about how “radical Islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland” as they did on 9/11, in the Boston bombings and in San Bernardino. He said it’s also happening “all over Europe” like in Paris and Nice.

“It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. In many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that,” Mr. Trump said.

There is no evidence that any media outlet is covering up terrorist attacks.

None,zero.

Trump accuses media of covering up terror attacks:

This comes after his adviser, Kellyanne Conway, referred to the “Bowling Green Massacre,” which never happened, in an effort to defend the administration’s travel ban. She later claimed that she misspoke and meant “Bowling Green terrorists.” Cosmopolitan said Monday that Conway had also referred to the fake massacre in an interview with one of its reporters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-claims-media-is-covering-up-terror-attacks/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6a&linkId=34185702

C.H. Truth said...

This is your interpretation of this law.

No Roger... it's the actual text of the law.

rrb said...

Surely there are some criteria that can be applied to filter out the potentially most dangerous individuals.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

andrew mccarthy advocates filtering out the "sharia supremacists." how you do that without banning muslims entirely is a tough needle to thread:


Our goal is not to exclude Muslims from our country; it is to exclude sharia supremacists, a significant subset of Muslims. They reject our Constitution. Many of them would like to kill us. All of them want us to submit to their law. The threat they pose is not hypothetical — they have killed thousands of Americans and are actively plotting to kill thousands more.

I make no apologies for wanting to keep them out of my country. Nor do I look at excluding them as excluding religion. It is, instead, the exclusion of a totalitarian political ideology — something that our law already explicitly endorses. See, e.g., Section 1182(a)(3)(D) of federal immigration law (“Immigrant Membership in Totalitarian Party”): “Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible” (emphasis added).

If we are serious about banning sharia-supremacism — or, if you insist, “radical Islam” — that is inescapably going to involve banning Muslims. All sharia supremacists are Muslims, just like all members of the Irish Republican Army are Irish.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444402/trump-muslim-ban-goal-ban-sharia-supremacists-not-all-muslims


at the end of the day, islam IS the problem. that's undeniable. the left would have us believe that there's an acceptable number of americans who must die to afford these savages religious liberty or something. i guess that works as long as your vantage point is somewhere safely out of reach of the building that's collapsing or the nightclub being sprayed with rifle fire to the tune of allahu akhbar..



C.H. Truth said...

To be clear the actual text is:

"prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

Which means that taken literally without any "interpretation" - the 1964 amendment prohibits only the examples mentioned and it applies strictly to immigrant visas.

Taking the statute as is: It does not apply to a travel ban or refugees.

rrb said...

This comes after his adviser, Kellyanne Conway, referred to the “Bowling Green Massacre,” which never happened,
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and we don't have 57 states or navy corpse men either.

next!

rrb said...

There is no evidence that any media outlet is covering up terrorist attacks.

None,zero.

Trump accuses media of covering up terror attacks:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

no, oh ye of limited intellect. he's accusing them of not reporting on it. guilty of a lie of omission. something the media practiced every day during the previous administration.

that which might be embarrassing to the left must not be reported.

you see rog, it requires zero effort to ignore a story. like when a cat takes a shit in a litter box. covering the turd requires effort. simply walking away requires none.



Roger Amick said...

As I included. The law is in dispute.

What it says, is the question.

racist rodent bigot, there is no evidence to support the President.

We have covered all the attacks, and used media coverage for our comments.

The White House issued a list. Every single one of them was covered extensively.

He is a compulsive,narcissistic liar.

But you are blinded by Trumpism.


Typical of dictatorships, you never question dear leader.

wphamilton said...

rrb said ... andrew mccarthy advocates filtering out the "sharia supremacists." how you do that without banning muslims entirely is a tough needle to thread:

You would be literally astounded about what is known and can be deduced about people. I'm somewhat sensitive to these questions since I am a software engineer for the largest data-broker in the world. Business intelligence, risk management, background checks, identity management, insurance data, you name it. As an example I recall a case study in a Big Data Summit meeting, solving a cold murder several decades old, just by making identity connections and backtracking in the data. It's mind-blowing.

If these were all US citizens I'd be confident that we do have the tools and data to identify extremists, the issue not being technical so much as legality and the commitment of resources. Foreign nationals, I don't know - maybe. That's why I phrased it that way, without complete assurance.

Even without the high-tech methods, the US can employ very stringent vetting methods, and with today's capabilities blocking everyone of one religion from entire nations is off the deep end. Even barring anyone with the slightest whiff of connection would be far better and less counter productive.

Roger Amick said...

I don't mean to be disrespectful but Donald Trump is a fraud. This guy ran for president of the United States saying, ‘I, Donald Trump, I’m going to take on Wall Street. These guys are getting away with murder.’ Then suddenly he appoints all these billionaires, his major financial adviser comes from Goldman Sachs, and now he’s going to dismantle legislation that protects consumers.

Roger Amick said...

Spot on.

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
As I included. The law is in dispute.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

yeah, for partisan political reasons, not legal reasons. from a legal basis there is no dispute. only complete asshats like you and my AG and 15 other democrat AG's claim otherwise.

caliphate4vr said...

DeVos is confirmed!

rrb said...

Even without the high-tech methods, the US can employ very stringent vetting methods, and with today's capabilities blocking everyone of one religion from entire nations is off the deep end. Even barring anyone with the slightest whiff of connection would be far better and less counter productive.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

agreed. like i said, a tough needle to thread. perhaps high tech methods combined with the brutally tough questioning the israelis impose on visitors to their country is in order. technology combined with military-grade behavioral specialists.

C.H. Truth said...

The law is in dispute.

A simple law with simple language should not be allowed to be "disputed" in court.

If you do not like a simple law with simple language and believe that it should state something else, then you go ahead and change it... through legislative channels.

Which is all sort of the whole point of this. Americans (by and large) are tired of the left taking everything to court and trying to undo elections and referendums by court coups.

And the reason why by very very large margins the American public want Justices to follow the letter of the law... not interpret meaning that doesn't exist.


Bottom line Roger. Everyone knows the issue is in Court. Doesn't make it right... and it certainly doesn't help the cause for liberalism, if indeed liberalism is actually interested in winning elections and having enough power to ever legislate again.

Because if Trump gets to nominate the fifth conservative (or even a sixth) - it may just force Democrats to change their strategy.

rrb said...

Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
DeVos is confirmed!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and chuckles the clown suffers another devastating blow.

rrb said...

And the reason why by very very large margins the American public want Justices to follow the letter of the law... not interpret meaning that doesn't exist.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and i'm also not a fan of having our foreign policy adjudicated in the courts every day either.



KD, Hi HB, how is your Day going? said...

C.H. Truth said...
This is your interpretation of this law.

No Roger... it's the actual text of the law. "

Roger is ragging against only god knows what any more.


Devos is DeBoss, This was the WOMAN the left was attempting to stop.

KD, HI HB, how is CalifoniSTAN today said...

I think that we all need to be nicer to HB, he is after all diminished and ragging against all things Trump.

In his heart Hillary WON the election and She should be moving this Nation further and sharply left.

opie said...

rrb said...
Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
Devon is confirmed!


That seal it, the education of the US is heading for the crapper......with rat and pauline leading the charge. Good, no kids in school to worry about as long as you are happy is good enough for me. LOL

Commonsense said...

Yeah I know you don't want your grandkids associating with those dirty little urchins from the wrong side of town.

After all you paid all that money to a private school so they wouldn't be contaminated at all.

To think they may actually let "those" people with a voucher in.

caliphate4vr said...

Who's Devon, fatty?

opie said...

Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
Who's Devon, fatty?


Wow, drunkard, you are the most awesome spell verifier since auto fill. Hope your hang over is finally done after your embarrassing loss. LOL