Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.
John Wooden
Tweet of the Day
The remaining principled Republicans in this corrupt Age of Trump, remain silent in the face of evil. Revised Niemöller: "came for refugees"— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 29, 2017
The Congress and Trump are complicit in this unspeakable evil of US weapons used against civilians; then they refuse to take in refugees.— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 29, 2017
Whatever happened to the principle "you broke it, you own it"? If you meddle in the Middle East, you must take responsibility for it, GOP!— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 29, 2017
Putting an unqualified political hack like Bannon on the National Security Council while downgrading the military chiefs is another blunder.— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 29, 2017
Trump is once again following the evil FDR's lead in a modern day retelling of the MS St. Louis, where Jewish refugees were turned back.— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 29, 2017
Trump wants to stop immigration until HE figures out what's going wrong?He doesn't know squat about the economy but he's signing exec orders— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 29, 2017
Trump doesn't know anything about unintended consequences of starting trade wars with the rest of the world, but that doesn't stop him.— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 29, 2017
Trump doesn't seem to know most imports he would tax are for businesses and raising business costs hurts profits and jobs.— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) January 29, 2017
Image of the Day
I'm On the Side Of these Protesters
Facebook Corner
(Justin Amash). Many supporters and opponents of President Trump's executive order are conflating the terms "immigrant" (which encompasses green card holders), "nonimmigrant," and "refugee."
It's not lawful to ban immigrants because of "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites.
It's lawful to ban nonimmigrants for almost any reason. These are people who are temporarily visiting the United States, like tourists or students.
It's lawful to ban refugees for almost any reason. But banning all refugees from particular countries is harsh and unwise. We still should admit well-vetted persons.
Understanding these distinctions is important because supporters of President Trump's executive order continue to wrongly insist that the order is lawful and that President Obama did almost the same thing in 2011. And opponents of President Trump's executive order continue to wrongly insist that banning refugees violates the Constitution or the law.
President Trump's executive order covers not only refugees but also immigrants and nonimmigrants. As noted above, it's not lawful to discriminate in the issuance of an *immigrant* visa because of the person's "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
President Obama's action (which wasn't disclosed at the time) covered only refugees and, therefore, did not violate the Constitution or the law, even if one finds it objectionable for other reasons.
Wrong. Arbitrary actions by the government, whether at the federal, state or local levels, violate the rule of law and equal protection. Human rights are not State-based but natural.
(National Review). Arguments to the contrary ignore the Constitution and misstate federal law.
No, it's not. Only a morally bankrupt fascist could believe such a thing. Constitutionally, the government cannot discriminate; that's what the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states. Don't forget the Fourteenth Amendment made it clear that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as the federal government; to argue the Feds were leaving themselves above the same standards they apply to the states is irrational. Trying to weasel out with all sorts of technicalities, like US citizens or residents are "more equal" than aliens flatly contradicts equal protection and the rule of law. Disparate standards are not morally or legally justifiable. Our Constitution is based on NATURAL rights, which preexist legally-conferred rights.
 |
| Via Pro-Life Libertarians |
Actually, when Gallup looked at this question in 2014, about 41% of women considered themselves pro-life, and 44% of men were pro-abort. Whereas 9 points more women were pro-abort, it was due principally to a lopsided majority in the Northeast region, principally younger women. Moreover, only about 28% of people believe in the unconditional legal right to abort. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Nate Beeler via Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists
Pat Benatar, "Fire and Ice"
