Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Secretary Hedge-sex just told me the bombing begins in 5 minutes

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm waiting for the exploding pagers..

[AmosArch]

So if it really was vital top secret war plans that would cost lives I guess the Atlantic committed treason by releasing it?

[Frank Drackman]

More like how Vito realized Barzini was the one who put out the hit on him

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Wow. There really are no depths to the dumbness that MAGA can sink to. Even if Goldberg didn't have the defense that the administration insisted that the messages weren't classified, that would not be "treason." The country's founding fathers were so concerned about the misuse of the concept of "treason" that they expressly and narrowly defined it in the constitution so that no morons could go around accusing people of it willy nilly. Printing information that the government gives to you does not for any person who can read English fit in that definition.

[not guilty]

Some expressions should not be used metaphorically, lest the concepts that they reference be trivialized. Examples include "holocaust," "blood libel" and "lynching."

During this century accusations of "treason" have fallen into that category.

[Commenter_XY]

You can throw racist, and a bunch of other 'ists' into that same 'not to be trivialized' bucket, I suppose. People being people, will not do that.

[Magister]

"Racism" is not used metaphorically, though, except maybe by racists who are trying to trivialize it.

[AmosArch]

Today the world racist is used to label those who refuse to engage in it.

[Bwaaah]

Magister: ""Racism" is not used metaphorically, though, except maybe by racists who are trying to trivialize it."

You can add that to your shibboleths, and use all kinds of other nasty adjectives with abandon, as you do. I guess that enforces some notion of propriety or civility. But civility is clearly not your objective. More like a language-based cudgel of fealty to some kind of sacred cow.

[Magister]

I am only pointing out that it's (mostly) not used metaphorically; it may be misused in some instances, but generally it conveys exactly what the definition is: prejudice, discrimination or antagonism based on membership in a particular racial or ethnic group.

But Bwaaah must leap to the defense of right wing misuse and misdirection.

[Bwaaah]

The word "racism" has numerous definitions that are widely used. For example, ones that immediately come to mind for me are:

#1: treating people in a way that disadvantages them on the basis of their race
#2: a societal system of power that subordinates people on the basis of race
#3: the usage of preconceived race-based stereotypes as a way of characterizing people and one's expectations of those people

There are other definitions. I think most "racists" tend to use definitions #1 and #3 above. But I'm not aware of "racists" using the term "racism" metaphorically. In fact, though people use the term in different ways, I'm not familiar with it ever being used metaphorically. It seems it's always used quite directly in reference to some kind of race-based differentiation and mistreatment, of people.

Can you give me an example of a metaphorical use of the term "racist" that you would associate with racists?

[Magister]

Bwaaah, I said that racism is not used metaphorically, except by racists who are trying to trivialize it. It's often the people who are identifying people who point out racism as the "real racists".

Trump: "Isn't it interesting that anybody who attacks President Obama is considered a racist by the real racists out there!" David Duke: "Jews and Zionists. They are waging a war against European-Americans. They are the real racists." A popular Republican talking point: Democrats are the real racists.

There is necessarily an element of race in this misuse, just as there is an assertion of disloyalty to the country in accusations of "treason".

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. I get your objection to its usage as such, but I don't think that's a metaphor, either in usage or intent. You're focused on the left/right variance in usage. Neither is trivializing the word, but rather, emphasizing different disadvantages (and disadvantaged populations) that result from race-based preferences.

[Magister]

OK, Bwaaah has also found the real racists.

[Bwaaah]

Since the word, and how it's wielded, is so important to you, I think what you meant to say is, "I, Bwaaah, know who the real racists are, because I, Bwaaah, know which people deserve preferential treatment."

At least phrase it in terms of your own preference for wielding of power, and don't falsely describe that as a me thing. Race is a you thing, not a me thing, Magister.

[Magister]

Bwaaah is again unable to read what is plainly before him, and this isn't just in response to my posts. To be clear enough even for Bwaaah, Bwaaah is completely wrong about what I think.

[Bwaaah]

OK. I won't try to infer your thinking.

"Bwaah found the real racists."

Please explain what "real racists" you think I found, and what it is that I said that leads you to believe that. (Please copy/paste direct quotes and avoid innuendo.)

[Magister]

Quoting something I didn't write. I wrote "OK, Bwaaah has also found the real racists." I wrote this because Bwaaah defended the misuse naming "real racists" that I listed just before that.

[Bwaaah]

If you ever want to have anything other than a nasty, useless conversation, I'd be interested.

[Magister]

I reply to you as you merit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"During this century accusations of "treason" have fallen into that category."

Yup. No one should use the term to refer to anything other than the Queen screwing Knights.

[Bwaaah]

I was taught that lynching was a sort of extra-judicial practice of white people hanging black people, until dead, particularly in the American south, typically and most troublingly without just cause.

The Emmett Till Antilynching Act seems to treat the term "lynching" as a metaphor for a wider range of acts and outcomes. Though its not intended to trivialize the original term, its inclusion of "serious bodily injury" does seem to lower the standard of lynching as I understood it.

[not guilty]

Lynching is the imposition of death upon another person by mob violence or by vigilantes without a judicial trial, often but not exclusively motivated by racial animus. Death can be by hanging or by other means. The victim can be black or white, although black victims are far and away more common. The perpetrators usually escaped justice.

In 1891, the largest single mass lynching (11) in American history was perpetrated in New Orleans against Italian immigrants.

[Bwaaah]

That was a dumb mistake for me to have not pointedly specified racial animus (as opposed to merely "without just cause") as the primary motivation for lynching.

My point was that I understood it not as an abstract notion of serious harm or death motivated by racial animus, but very specifically the barbaric act of people seizing and killing other people by method of hanging, most commonly and significantly black ("negro") Americans. And though racial animus and hate were typical, its important to point out that they weren't necessary. Away from the fronts of the mobs, all that was necessarily present was indifference to humanity and human suffering. (The KKK even brought a spirit of collegiality to the affair.)

But in our federal law, we indeed defined the term "lynching" metaphorically. That's most easily understood by saying that if somebody had no idea what "lynching" means and you directed them to read the definition in our federal law (18 USC 249(a)(5)), they would have no knowledge of anything but a legalism for which the action itself has been turned into a generalized metaphor for a "hate crime."

[Michael P]

The fact that you agree with treason doesn't mean it falls outside that narrow definition. Houthis have attacked US warships recently and have not made peace with us, so they meet the constitutional definition of "enemies". If the information in the chat was as sensitive as the left pretends, providing it to the Houthis would give them aid or comfort.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Check your timeline.
2. "If the information in the chat was as sensitive as the left pretends" is not a serious inquiry into treason.

What a weasel.

[David Nieporent]

So, I guess we can chalk up Michael P in the "not a person who can actually read English" column. Or a calendar.

The constitution doesn't say "giving them aid or comfort." It says "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." They were very expliclt because they didn't want someone being accused of treason just because one of that person's actions could be argued to benefit an enemy.

Also, we're not at war.

Also, the information was sensitive before the fact, not after.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — There was one bit of information which remains sensitive even now. The Signal conference record disclosed that there existed a person who had surveilled the scene of the attack, confirmed the presence of a person targeted, and by some means conveyed that information to attack planners.

The identity of that person was not disclosed specifically, but the confirmation of the person's existence, coupled with a certain intensive search to assess within what scope the person may have been located, put that person at risk, and effectively blew his cover. Not only that, but it probably put uninvolved others at risk of being misidentified, either as the information source, or as accomplices.

All of that belies claims by Signal conference participants that no harm to American interests resulted from their reckless conduct.

[Absaroka]

"The Signal conference record disclosed that there existed a person who had surveilled the scene of the attack,"

Just as a nitpick, because you've said it twice, what the chats said was:

"Building collapsed. Had multiple positive ID" and "he first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed".

But in the Atlantic article, right next to those quotes, they say "the reference to “multiple positive ID” suggests that U.S. intelligence had ascertained the identities of the Houthi target, or targets, using either human or technical assets."

Which could be eyes on the ground, or tracking cell phones from orbit, or who knows what. Not that disclosing those capabilities couldn't be bad[1], but it's good to keep the details accurate.

[1]which is why the magazine refrained from doing so until multiple admin people said there was no sensitive info in the chat.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Thanks for the nit-pick. Reminded me that I had made that assertion on the basis of a general memory from one among several near-concurrent sources I had not noted in detail.

Turns out the source in question was CBS News, which has published a story to say that an anonymous intelligence expert reported to CBS that Israeli Intelligence was furious over the Signal leak. CBS reported the leak blew the cover of an Israeli intelligence asset, a person who was at the scene.

Make of it what you will.

[Absaroka]

Ah, here's a link. Yup, that's bad. Really bad.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thanks for that link. It shows the story has been fleshed out considerably since I first heard about it.

What I suspect this portends is a critically needed giant investigation which will go undone.

[AmosArch]

If its literally going to be dangerous vital stuff you don't post it as a moral issue. It doesn't matter what mistakes a government official makes or supposedly continues to make.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Your reference to "moral issue" is very un-MAGA (implying that what is moral isn't simply what others have done to you), but when the government which is supposedly the final arbiter of what is and is not a sensitive military matter repeatedly insists that the chat logs do not contain that, a journalist is probably entitled to rely on their assessment.

On the other hand, if the government insiders' heads begin to roll, the journalist may not have anywhere left to hide...

[John F. Carr]

Writers at The Atlantic were told by high level government officials that the information they published was not classified. They lack the necessary criminal intent.

[jimc5499]

Thank you. You're about the only person who gets it right.

[AmosArch]

So even if its going to kill people Goldberg still is completely fine pushing the send button straight to our enemies just because someone else gave it to him and said it was okay even though he obviously knows it isn't and will kill people? Wow you guys are psycho.

[John F. Carr]

If he forwarded the information to Yemen before the bombs started falling he could be liable for transmitting "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States" in violation of the Espionage Act. After the attack is over when he has been assured by people with apparent authority to do so that the information is unclassified, publish away.

If somebody in a position to speak authoritatively tells you something is legal, that is a defense to prosecution. Usually high officials avoid giving such assurances.

[AmosArch]

So its okay to have no morals if an incompetent politician, by your own standards and you've made your life's mission to convince people is incompetent, tells you its okay. Got it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Writers at The Atlantic were told by high level government officials that the information they published was not classified. They lack the necessary criminal intent."

But the writers at The Atlantic knew that the high level government officials were lying.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Heads I win, tails you lose!

[Social Justice is neither]

After the fact or before? The problem here is a lot of people pushing this "scandal" want it both ways. To me the process is the problem if it allows random journalists into such meetings without very clear control of the invite authorization.

[Sarcastr0]

whose process?

[bernard11]

After the fact or before? The problem here is a lot of people pushing this "scandal" want it both ways. To me the process is the problem if it allows random journalists into such meetings without very clear control of the invite authorization.

The HLGO's released it before the attack. It was only by the grace of Goldberg that he was the only one who saw it. And now the right is criticizing Goldberg for some reason, rather than Hegseth and Waltz, who were the actual fuckups.

Why put "scandal" in quotes? Do you think it was just a trivial oversight? And who is trying to have it both ways, aside from the Administration which claims it's a big nothingburger, but Goldberg did something terrible nonetheless.

I do agree that the process that put him in the chat is the problem. Maybe we should have different people in charge of that process.

And BTW, I've been on group chats and so on, though never on Signal. Normally, you see the names of the participants. Is that not the case here? If it is why didn't somebody ask who J. Goldberg was?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernard11 — The process that put Goldberg on the conference was indeed a major problem, but not the only one, and not the most important one. Use of technology which delivered in plain text to an ordinary cell phone what should have been encrypted content is a potentially disastrous miscarriage of process. That manifestly happened.

Whether or not some misplaced member of the press was there to tell the tale, the practice to use technology which could do that now requires the most painstaking investigation. How often has it happened before? Who has been involved? What secrets my have been intercepted as a result? What other national security operations are now potentially compromised? Who will be lying and non-cooperating to thwart those indispensable investigations? What should the response of Congress be if it cannot get forthright cooperation? By what trustworthy means can the public be informed that effective accountability resulted from an investigation which perforce must happen in secret?

[jb]

Releasing war plans before the thing actually happened seems like it could cost lives, or at least make the plan less effective.

Releasing war plans after the planned events have already occurred does not carry the same risk, since the thing already happened and you could read about it in the news even if you didn't have the plan in advance.

This is obvious stuff and you know better. And if this is the best defense anyone can come up with for Signalgate, it seems like there's no real defense. The Atlantic has continued to withhold the name of an active CIA agent mentioned in the chats, because disclosing their name would put them in jeopardy.

[John F. Carr]

It's not as dramatic as that. The Atlantic does not hold the agent's life in its hands. There is no reason to think the agent is a spy. CIA has a policy against revealing names in general. The name is not important to the story and The Atlantic can report it made all the redactions requested by the government.

[Stephen Lathrop]

John F. Carr — There is every reason to think the person was a spy who provided information that a person targeted was present to be killed. It need not have been an American, and probably was not one, and almost certainly not a CIA agent. But an American security asset, nonetheless, and perhaps a security asset for an American ally as well.

[Absaroka]

The 'agent' being discussed wasn't anyone in Yemen:

"A CIA spokesperson asked us to withhold the name of John Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, which Ratcliffe had shared in the Signal chain, because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified. Ratcliffe had testified earlier yesterday that the officer is not undercover and said it was “completely appropriate” to share their name in the Signal conversation. We will continue to withhold the name of the officer."

(that's from the second Atlantic article)

[Commenter_XY]

There is not a defense. Waltz definitely did the deed. So did Hegeseth. It was careless up to the line of negligence. The POTUS has to decide how he wishes to handle accountability. He doesn't appear to be inclined to fire NatSecAdv Waltz or SecDef Hegeseth at this time.

Might that change? Possibly. If this duo manages to do their jobs without further carelessness, and don't F up, they get off with a verbal admonition from their boss. He gets to make the decision on how to handle his hired help.

[Estragon]

“they get off with a verbal admonition from their boss”

In your mind does that constitute a formal reprimand? Sounds kind of informal, to me

[Commenter_XY]

I know this might come as a shock to you, but getting publicly admonished by the POTUS for carelessness isn't exactly resume enhancing.

Would you prefer a pillory, Estragon?

[Estragon]

Haha, well, Whiskey Pete’s resume speaks for itself.

I’d prefer they all resign. Still, you didn’t really answer— do you view “verbal admonishment” as a formal reprimand? Would you view that as sufficient for what you have termed “careless[ness]”?

[Commenter_XY]

A public verbal reprimand from a POTUS, any POTUS, is infinitely worse than a written formal reprimand in your government employee file.

If it were just up to me, I'd fire Waltz. Or the staffer who added Goldberg. Neither is irreplaceable. Guess what? It isn't up to me. I didn't get elected to POTUS. DJT did.

[Estragon]

“A public verbal reprimand from a POTUS, any POTUS, is infinitely worse than a written formal reprimand in your government employee file.”

Worse… in what sense? Spiritually? There’s something strangely monarchist in this comment.

How do you think a body like the MSPB would view a verbal comment at a press conference vs. formal reprimand in an employee’s file?

[Commenter_XY]

Are they still around? Thought DOGE whacked them. No? Give it some time.

[Estragon]

Not responsive. Worse in what way?

[Estragon]

It’s just such a strange way to conceive of representative government. An ill word from the leader is “infinitely” more consequential than a formalized architecture of rules governing employee misconduct?

In a vacuum, is that how you would design a system of government? It’s a little mind boggling to see you boost this so openly. Live and die by the good graces of el caudillo? That’s the ideal state of affairs?

[Commenter_XY]

You ask a fair question, worse in what way.

Do you want to be the guy explaining to his next employer, post Trump Presidency, how stupid it was to include a damned TDS reporter like Goldberg on a signal chat with Cabinet officers and the VP discussing attacks on an adversary?

Nah, I didn't think so. Neither do I.

Live and die by El Caudillo, very apropos. That is the reality of life, Estragon.

[Estragon]

Well, points for frankness, I suppose. It strikes me as a strange position to take on an ostensibly legal blog. Then again, I find much of what is said around here these days to be mystifying.

[David Nieporent]

Do you want to be the guy explaining to his next employer, post Trump Presidency, how stupid it was to include a damned TDS reporter like Goldberg on a signal chat with Cabinet officers and the VP discussing attacks on an adversary?

Nah, I didn't think so. Neither do I.

1) The only thing Pete Hegseth is qualified to do is go back to being a talking head on Fox. (Or Newsmax or OAN or the like.) None of those employers could care less.
2) Assuming that he were looking for a job with an employer that cared, the employer is going to care about the actual reckless behavior, not whether Donald Trump reprimanded him for it.

[Absaroka]

"He gets to make the decision on how to handle his hired help."

That's as true as true can be. Likewise, I get to decide what this administration's handling of the incident tells me about who to vote for in the future.

People associated with the military have historically leaned pretty far R. At least some of them seem a little upset.

[Commenter_XY]

Feel free not to vote for The Donald in the next election. 😉

[Absaroka]

ISTM he isn't the only one in this admin coming off looking incompetent.

[Nelson]

Hopefully that comment remains a joke in 2028.

[Commenter_XY]

It will be a joke, Nelson. Welcome back.

[David Nieporent]

Like Trump is going to allow any more elections.

[Estragon]

I will say— I took a few things out of Ms. Stefanik’s overboarding.

1) another example of Don’s amusing tendency to backstab and humiliate his most sycophantic supporters.

2) their internal polling must be awful

3) nevertheless, it does seem like they are actually anticipating contesting elections— at the very least in the sense of accepting the results of upcoming special elections.

Thin gruel, I know— but these are hard times for the reality based.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, CNN last night broadcast an extreme, over-the-top, profane, borderline emotionally deranged, cell phone rant—against the security leak—apparently from the wife of a serviceman stationed in the Middle East. Maybe a pilot.

Thing is, it was actually brilliant, it went on and on, shrieking out one substantive point after another.

I wish I had a link to it. One of the best TV critiques I have seen lately. Not much Ethos, Logos to spare, and Pathos doing much better work than it usually does. Made the usual CNN panel seem bland and inadequate.

[Bob from Ohio]

"active CIA agent"

The Chief of Staff to the CIA Director is not an "agent".

[jimc5499]

When I was in the Navy, flight schedules were considered "classified" information. The following day they weren't because they were no longer relevant. We used the backs of them for scratch paper. Many times I wrote a grocery list on the back of one and tossed it in the trash can at the store when I was done.
About the time of the Benghazi incident a Navy submariner was prosecuted for taking pictures of the control room of a submarine. People were quick to point out that the exact same control room was in a YouTube video. His crime wasn't that he took the pictures, it was that he violated the security regulations. If he would have made a request to take the pictures there was a very good chance that it would have been approved.
By the time this article appeared in the Atlantic, the information in the texts was overcome by events and no longer relevant. That there was nothing "classified" in the texts to begin with makes this nothing more than another case of TDS.

[Voize of Reazon]

I don't follow. The texts may not have been sensitive when the Atlantic published them, as you say it is SOP that time-sensitive information is downgraded if not declassified after the event.
But Hegseth texted the information before the attack, and your experience supports the finding that it was sensitive then, so how do you conclude that there was nothing classified to begin with?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Maybe he's using the rational definition of "TDS"?

[AmosArch]

Wow, okay I guess you can point me to the government website where they immediately declassify every single military action they took the moment after it happened.

BTW I am not talking about defending the leak. I'm talking about the Atlantic. Maybe everybody in the chat should be fired. But vital war plans can still be valuable stuff even after they happened. If as a private citizen your uncle accidentally gave you Joe Biden era war plans and you posted them to the entire world and for some reason the media didn't feel like making this into a political issue since they liked Biden you can bet your bottom dollar you'd be looking at some serious prosecution regardless of it being your uncles fault.

[Absaroka]

"But vital war plans can still be valuable stuff even after they happened"

They can be, but needn't be. For example: the D-Day landings happened on 6Jun44 roughly between Caen and Sainte-Mère-Église. As tip-top secret as could be prior to 6Jun, not so much after. Similarly, 'US planes to bomb Yemen imminently' is more sensitive than 'US planes bombed Yemen yesterday, according to Pentagon briefing'. And 'the US was planning to bomb Yemen on 15Mar' is a lot less sensitive on 24Mar when the article was published. Because I think the Houthis figured out we had been planning to bomb them not too long after the bombs hit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The post-operation sensitive point, an extremely sore one, is that the narrative confirmed existence of an eyes-on operative who confirmed presence of a targeted person. That operative may survive that exposure, if he can't be found, and clears out fast. Not likely he will be of any future intelligence use to America, or to whatever nation relayed his intelligence, if that is how it worked.

[Sarcastr0]

Amos was pointed to the Pentagon Papers case last open thread. But I guess he didn't bother to look it up.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Or maybe he did but you didn't? The Pentagon Papers case has no applicability here.

[EllaWilson]

I did not vote for "judge" blowsberg.

[EllaWilson]

"judge" blowsberg's entire family is making millions$$$ off of illegal criminals.

[not guilty]

Supporting details, EllaWilson?

[Joe_dallas]

probably not $millions,

[EllaWilson]

His "wife", who now says she's a man, got $8.2 million from USAID for her abortion clinic that she started with Hillary.

[Joe_dallas]

Ella - fwiw I posted a report yesterday on the family connections and the funding the family (extended family) receives from the government indirectly for their leftist causes. There is a lot of interfamily connections with the judge and the leftwing causes from other family members.

[EllaWilson]

Thank you. I have no issues with making money off left wing causes. I have issues with an illegal "judge" on the take.

[windycityattorney]

You don't need scare quotes dipshit. He is the chief judge of the DC district court. Also, Brett Kavanaugh's former roommate at Yale law school. He is as qualified as anybody to hear the cases assigned to him and if MAGA DOJ thinks he is compromised, they know how to file a motion to recuse or for substitution of judge.

[rloquitur]

Oh yeah we do. The judge didn't seem to consider his subject matter jurisdiction . . . . and can't deal with the idea that oral statements don't get the job done.

[not guilty]

"His 'wife', who now says she's a man, got $8.2 million from USAID for her abortion clinic that she started with Hillary."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, EllaWilson?

[Frank Drackman]

Well she is rather mannish

[bernard11]

Let's not not be harsh, NG. I'm confident she being truthful in saying she didn't vote for Boasberg.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm as confident she's not a she (in a biological sense).

[jb]

LOL, you guys are idiots. Can't even keep straight which family member is doing what.

His wife does run an abortion clinic, which is in the US and has nothing to do with USAID.

His daughter has a not-very-senior role at a nonprofit that gets a lot of government grants, some of which are indirectly linked to USAID.

As far as I can tell, you just made the $8.1 million number up.

And remind me again: are we deciding on whether judges can be impartial or not based on what their family members do? I thought I remembered from last year that it was dumb to think that a wife's political activities would affect their husbands' judging.

[EllaWilson]

Where did you get $8.1 million from?

[jb]

Probably the same place as your $8.2 million. My imagination. Although my imagination is at least quite close to what you wrote, whereas your $8.2 million seems entirely made up.

[Drewski]

Only a bot would be confused by that minor misstatement. I suggest people avoid engaging with it.

[Axulus123]

Cruelly detaining students with multiple hooded thugs in plainsclothes and unmarked vehicles when a simple phone call or letter that the visa had been revoked and that they needed to return home within a month or so would have worked fine.

Filming fascist propaganda in front of nonconsenting prisoners, using them as political props, a potential violation of the geneva convention.

Analysis/discussion of contempt of court for federal officials. Discussion of case law regarding it. When did it happen? What was the outcome?

Analysis on violations of presidential record act or other recordkeeping requirements for the federal government in regards to use of signal app and auto deletion of messages.

[hobie]

Go the cesspools that are the comment boards of MAGA news outlets and they are all giddy with delight over this.

Are we experiencing a Pinochet type of thing here, or is it just straight up Khmer Rouge?

[Thought about __ all my life]

Hobie , you just look foolish so misunderstanding Khmer Rouge !!!

"Even where it's appropriate for the court to play its traditional role of safeguarding the liberties of American citizens, we have this phenomena of nation-wide injunctions where the lowest level judge, district judges, try to bind the entire nation and bind the president in their initial decision. That is not what we have meant by the judicial power under our Constitution," BILL BARR

[Dr. Ed 2]

We can't have 600 Presidents.

[Frank Drackman]

American Citizens have Constitutional Rights. Terrorists don't.

[not guilty]

Yes, American Citizens have Constitutional Rights. So do other persons within our borders.

[Frank Drackman]

do American Citizens get taken to "3rd Countries" to get Waterboarded?
Would you like to be the first?
C'mon Man, I kid the Liberals, but sorry, Moe-hammad Atta and his 18 Thieves didn't deserve Pubic Defenders, Culturally Sensitive Meals, and the Electric Chair facing Mecca.
But you're right, I don't want Mah-mood Khal-Kill deported to Syria
I want his body deported there, after he gets the Jeffy Dahmer treatment in his Louisiana Lockup, (is that how you say it? "Lockup"?)
Wow, that wasn't kind or gentle.

Frank

[jimc5499]

That has never been determined in Court. People who legally immigrated have some rights, but, the status of illegals has never been determined.

[not guilty]

"That has never been determined in Court. People who legally immigrated have some rights, but, the status of illegals has never been determined."

WRONG!! I have been quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982) -- a case involving illegal aliens -- on these comment threads for weeks.

Unless and until that decision is overruled or modified (which well may occur), even illegal aliens are entitled to due process and equal protection of the laws.

[damikesc]

"Due process" does not mean "court trial". Sorry to break it to you.

[EllaWilson]

"The relationship Canada had with the United States is over"

[TaioF920]

Good. Canada, Australia, as well as our "allies" in Western Europe, have been taking advantage of us for decades. It's time that they pay their fair share.

[Krayt]

What do you think the tyrants of the world will try to do to them? Like invade because they're expansionist empires?

The cold war's principle was containment. Do not let the empires grow. Letting the empire have more economic power is not a benefit to the United States.

[ReaderY]

The United States is, at this point, an empire that wants to grow. It has thrown in its lot with the other like-minded empires that want to grow. Letting the empires have more economic power (not to mention land grabbed from weaker nations) is precisely current Us policy.

[myself]

Good. The US has been abusing it's position as a superpower for decades. It's time they figure out just how much they benefited from all their allies.

[TaioF920]

We've been abusing our position through reckless spending and printing.

In every other instance, we've been the abused party.

[myself]

You think it's a coincidence that the US is so rich? The US was spending all that money overseas for a very good reason, and it wasn't altruism.

[ReaderY]

Certainly. They do tarriffs against us, boycott us, disrupt our economy, persuade other countries not to buy from us, compete with us, do their best to diminish our influence in the world, if get strong enough and enough allies maybe attack us and try to grap a chunk of our territory, maybe nuke us.

Once we pull shit like threatening Canada nad Denmark by saying we want to make Canada and Greenland US territory, their “fair share” of payback could be as much as nuking our cities. It will at the very least be doing their absolute best to impoverish us, reduce our influence in the world, ally with our enemies, make sure we have as few friends and trading partners as possible.

[TaioF920]

No. They've been abusing us by making us pay to defend them and provide them with health care and drug research.

[Voize of Reazon]

making us pay to defend them

How did they do that, TaioF? Wasn't the US a voluntary participant (if not instigator) in NATO, ANZUS, RIO, NORAD?

SEATO too, though it was ineffective. Its major accomplishment was to serve as the official excuse for US and Australian intervention in Vietnam.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I didn't mute anyone named "TaioF920", and yet here he is, in all his gray-faced glory. I wonder who he was before?

[Joe_dallas]

Our relationship with the leftists in canada is over
Normal Canadians continue to enjoy our friendship.

Same thing with leftist europeans.

[bernard11]

You consider this good news, like your idiot allies Ella and Taio????

[TaioF920]

Yes. I don't want "allies" like snotty Western Europeans, the kind of effeminate men in Oslo, London, Paris, Brussels and elsewhere who wear scarves, think gay sodomy is healthy and normal and refer to their "girlfriends" as "partners," and walk out of their tiny apartments to coffee shops to spend their free time.

[damikesc]

The UK in enshrining a two-tier justice system into law.

I fail to see what benefit they provide to us as an "ally". We do not need allies that loathe free speech and seek to ban all political rivals. That is, well, Western Europe for you.

[Joe_dallas]

bernard11 19 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You consider this good news, like your idiot allies Ella and Taio?

Just pointing out that the US standing in the world isnt governed by the warped leftist view.
Step outside your leftist bubble

[TaioF920]

We don't fear a Pinochet type thing. We yearn for it.

[Krayt]

"Thanks, Vlad!"

[Bob from Ohio]

"Pinochet type of thing here, or is it just straight up Khmer Rouge"

Points added for using non-Nazi comparisons, many, many points off for using a Khmer Rouge comparison. The Khmer Rouge killed at a rate that Himmler would have envied. Keep it together man.

[bsmith]

These are the true things to get worked up about. DOGE and all that nonsense is temporary and what breaks can be fixed rather quickly. Damaging the soul and values of the nation not so much.

[TaioF920]

If you think the "soul" of America is letting terrorist sympathizers and other left-wing garbage study here on student visas, then America's soul isn't worth saving.

[bsmith]

You mean a country founded on free mind, free speech, and free association? Why are you wasting your time commenting on a libertarian magazine?

[TaioF920]

The founders did not envision free speech and association for aliens who didn't belong. They were creating a mostly Protestant society, and it was within that framework that their ideals rested.

[bsmith]

Define "belong"

[damikesc]

Yes, we need to make sure dealing with fraud ends quickly.

DEMOCRATS GOTS TO MAKE THEIR MONEY!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

They should have arrested everyone around her as well.

[windycityattorney]

MORE BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!

You people are sick in the head. Get a grip.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

They just took the "Shock and Awe" tactics created under the Biden Administration to target J6'ers and are applying to to people who actually deserve it.

While that comment is tongue & cheek, it's important to surface how none of you clowns gave two flying fucks when the DOJ was terrorizing MeeMaw and Papaw.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon man!!, MeeMaw was praying in front of an Abortion Clinic! Think how many young women's feelings were hurt as they were on their way to kill their baby!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"They just took the "Shock and Awe" tactics created under the Biden Administration to target J6'ers and are applying to to people who actually deserve it."

They haven't gone anywhere that far -- YET.

They should, and if the WeHateAmeriKKKa crowd keeps it up, likely will but haven't gone that far yet.

What's interesting is how our judges didn't step in for the J6er.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Boasburg threw the book at J6'ers - turned out unconstitutionally so- while pulling out all the stops to bring back criminal illegal alien gang members.

This is why everyone outside of DC hates everyone in DC. They are garbage humans who deserve severe justice.

[Nelson]

“ turned out unconstitutionally so”

Really? When did that happen?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-rule-for-jan-6-defendant/

[Magister]

That doesn't say anything was unconstitutional; only that the statute used in some cases did not apply to the circumstances of some cases.

[not guilty]

Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2, did you, uh, read the Chief Justice's opinion in Fischer? Yes or no?

The decision turned on statutory construction, not on any constitutional question. Do you know the difference between the two?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2, did you read the Chief Justice's opinion in Fischer?

[David Nieporent]

Boasburg threw the book at J6'ers - turned out unconstitutionally so- while pulling out all the stops to bring back criminal illegal alien gang members.

In addition to lying about "unconstitutionally," Boasberg did the opposite of throwing the book at them, routinely giving lesser sentences than the govt asked for.

[damikesc]

That is false.

Is lying your first language?

[David Nieporent]

It is in fact true. Don't take my word for it; take Zillow Ed's word for it:

https://x.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1905333907773333762

[Bob from Ohio]

"They just took the "Shock and Awe" tactics created under the Biden Administration to target J6'ers and are applying to to people who actually deserve it."

Yup.

[Nelson]

Wow, you people just can’t accept that smashing into the Capitol, assaulting law enforcement, and causing members to flee a mob are all bad things, can you?

[Nelson]

And that was before we found out that half of them were pedophiles with kiddie porn.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

It would be nice if they had focused on those people that you describe, the ones who actually caused harm.

But they didn't. They did nationwide manhunts after any body who was there.

[damikesc]

Stop whining over the milk you spilled.

[TaioF920]

That letter or phone call would have given them time to find a left leaning lawyer to file a lawsuit in front of an Obama or Biden judge.

[Riva]

You may have noticed the innocent “student” supporters of the Hamas terrorist animals love to wear masks, especially when they’re terrorizing jewish students and committing and promoting other acts of violence.

Interesting though that that all the anti-semites are also Trump haters. Doesn’t seem like President Trump is doing that fascist thing too well.

[EllaWilson]

12 Rochester police officers face termination for helping ICE arrest illegals because it violates sanctuary city laws. Mayor Malik Evans and Chief David Smith are choosing illegal aliens over their own officers.

[TaioF920]

In a sane world, Evans and Smith would be tried for treason.

[Joe_dallas]

any guesses what inference that can be drawn for the name "malik"

[Sarcastr0]

That you're a bigot?

[Joe_dallas]

I am a realist
His behavior is typical of that demographic of the population, so the inference is reasonable.

[Sarcastr0]

'Demographic realism' = bigot but ashamed.

[Sarcastr0]

You are pre-judging someone based on their demographic.

The word prejudice is directly what you're doing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto thinks the Swedish Bikini Team are potential terrorists.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed thinks a fictional group of people are real.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
That you're a bigot?

Its a religion that abuses women -
Are you okay with being an anti-bigot?

[Commenter_XY]

The appropriate response is for the people of Rochester to vote him out (mayor), and the new mayor terminate the employment of the chief.

Where is the PBA? Are they not protecting their brothers in blue?

[Voize of Reazon]

Evans is running for re-election this year. We'll see what the voters think.

[Commenter_XY]

Exactly. I am fine if the voters want Evans. But don't come crying later when things go to hell after the thin blue line is stretched beyond capacity to address petty crime (like murder, rape, extortion, etc).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rochester was Kodak.

This says it all:
As of the 2020 Census, 38.0% of Rochester residents were non-Hispanic Black, 33.0% were non-Hispanic White, 19.8% were Hispanic/Latino, 3.9% were Asian, 0.2% were Native American or Pacific Islander, and 5.1% were mixed or other.

In 2020, there were 91,500 households, of which 18.8% were married couples living together, 9.9% were unmarried co-habitating couples, 42.3% had a female householder with no partner present, and 29.0% had a male householder with no partner present. Of all households, 41.3% were made up of individuals, 25.3% had children under 18 living with them, and 9.2% had someone living alone 65 or older. 33.1% of housing units were owner-occupied, and 66.9% were rented. The age distribution was 18.8% under 18, 15.4% from 18 to 24, 30.8% from 25 to 44, 22.6% from 45 to 64, and 12.4% who were 65 or older. The median age was 32.9. For every 100 females, there were 93.6 males.

According to 2020 American Community Survey estimates, The median income for a city household was $37,395, and for a family was $43,873. Males had a median income of $30,379, versus $28,260 for females. The per capita income for the city was $24,916. About 25.5% of families and 30.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 48.2% of those under age 18 and 17.3% of those age 65 or over.

[Nelson]

“ Where is the PBA? Are they not protecting their brothers in blue?”

Their resources have been depleted defending cops that beat handcuffed prisoners to death. There are a lot too many of those cases.

[Jerry B.]

"...a potential violation of the Geneva convention."

Thanks for admitting that we're at war with illegal immigrant terrorists.

[Krayt]

"Perp walks" may be considered such, when done for the purpose of parading prisoners before cameras.

Saddam Hussein, when captured, had a video of a medical tech with gloves checking his nasty hair for lice. People questioned whether this counted as parading a captured enemy. It was only a few seconds and claimed was to assure Iraqi people he had actually been captured. And to take a dig at him "coincidentally" getting checked for lice as part of proper medical care.

The good guys are concerned even these things count as violations, lest it encroach on something you might see in a 1984 movie. You know, the story you quote about being eternally at war with East Eurasia?

The good guys demanded no parades of captured prisoners for propaganda purposes. That's exactly what happened here, on a larger scale. Parades of prisoners for propaganda purposes, to let people know, see? We got them, here they are, captured and humiliated. Point at them and go, "Fuck you!". This may even be justified. But that propaganda is not supposed to be done to protect our own guys, just like torture is similarly forbidden.

Oh, geeze. Oh, dear.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A role for newspapers.

In the months ahead whatever local newspapers remain in the nation may have opportunity to recapitulate the role small newspapers played during the nation's founding. It would be wise for their proprietors to begin now to correspond with each other, using old fashioned methods which do not depend on the internet.

If there is to be an existential crisis for American constitutionalism—which I continue to advocate to avoid, but obviously against apparent tendencies of DOGE/MAGA—then I hope to see a capacity to publicize which does not depend on an internet controlled by co-plotters leagued with President Trump.

Common sense and public safety suggest that American public communications must remain at least as decentralized as American elections. That is not the situation which exists now. The mechanisms of publicity have never previously been more centrally controlled than they are now. That implies profound danger to American civic life.

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t forget the Military-Industrial complex

[bsmith]

Problem is nobody is going to read it, much less pay for it

[Stephen Lathrop]

Not that hard to imagine a car dealer in competition with a Tesla dealer buying an ad. There are a lot more of the former than the latter. If I were the publisher of a weekly, I would organize preferred position for cooperative ad buys by those dealers. Probably the inside front cover. That would provide notable income all by itself.

[Commenter_XY]

One problem, lathrop. Tesla dealers do not buy ads. Tesla is unique in the auto industry for not spending dollars on marketing.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
Yes, it would be nice, but local papers have a hard time surviving. The Providence Journal used to be a decent paper but now is paper thin. It may still have an audience for those over 70, but it clearly is struggling. I imagine this is a story in many small cities.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, I get that there are about two generations who have grown to maturity without ever mastering how to turn pages on a tabloid, let alone a broadsheet. If during a near-future authoritarian regime the only way to get not-government news turns out to be learning how to turn those pages, I am guessing most folks could learn to manage it. At least newspapers published by the thousands would have the advantage of no kill-switch to censor all the sources at once. Can't say that for social media.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - you seem to confuse authoritarian regimes with those regimes opposing authoritarian behavior.

You also seem very confused on which "authoritarian regime" has been active in censorship.

[Don Nico]

I agree that if necessary people could learn to manage it. My mom was still reading the Prov. Journal when she was over 100 yo. When I commute on the T, I never see a person reading a newspaper and only very seldom see a person reading–would you believe it–a book with paper pages.
I agree with your comment about the potential value, but I fear that it is a lost cause.

[Riva]

There is a role for main stream newspapers. One needs something to potty train a dog or line a bird cage. If only papers were soft and absorbent, then they would have other uses in the bathroom for emergencies.

[Don Nico]

Gosh, that is a stupid comment.

[Frank Drackman]

You're right for a change, even I wouldn't inflict the Atlanta Urinal Constipation on a defenseless animal.

[Kazinski]

Decatur v Pauling 1840 is an interesting case on the limits of Judicial authority on the executive. The case was whether the court could second guess the judgment of the Secretary of the Navy whether the Widow of Stephen Decatur was eligible to collect 2 pensions.

The Circiut Court ruled it had no jurisdiction to second guess the judgment of a government official within the ordinary scope of his authority.

"The interference of the courts with the performance of the ordinary duties of the executive departments of the government would be productive of nothing but mischief, and we are quite satisfied that such a power was never intended to be given to them."

are therefore of opinion that the circuit court were not authorized by law to issue the mandamus, and committed no error in refusing it. And as we have no jurisdiction over the acts of the Secretary in this respect, we forbear to express any opinion upon the construction of the resolution in question.
The judgment of the circuit court, refusing to award a peremptory mandamus, must be
Affirmed"

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/39/497/

Catrons concurrence points out issues still germane to this day:

"What guarantee have the people of this country that the circuit court of this district, will as faithfully perform the functions they have assumed, when dealing out the public money to satisfy rejected claims, as the heads of the departments? The court is wholly irresponsible to the people for its acts; is unknown to them; the judges hold appointments of an ordinary judicial character, and are accidentally exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the Treasury and public officers are located."

[Sarcastr0]

Keep advocating for lawlessness.

We are not a populist dictatorship, even if you quote a pre-Civil War concurrence on a case about “ordinary authority”

[Kazinski]

Well it was both the majority opinion, and the concurrence I quoted, and the case was about decisions on expending public funds.

The ruling was pretty clear, not only did the courts not have authority to order the disbursement of public funds, they also didn't have the competence to second guess the Secretaries either.

And I am certainly not advocating lawlessness, I am advocating what I think the law is.

I don't think circuit court judges have the authority to second guess administration policy, and certainly not to issue nationwide injunctions and provide relief for non-parties.

[Sarcastr0]

The ruling was pretty clear
I don't think it was. Because your reading doesn't comport with the existence of judicial review of executive action.

And I am certainly not advocating lawlessness, I am advocating what I think the law is.
You've been going after the judiciary. Because you think Trump is a king and his decisions are not reviewable.

Because you like how Trump's got an in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Nor are we anti-populist so that the lowest courts subvert the highest

""Even where it's appropriate for the court to play its traditional role of safeguarding the liberties of American citizens, we have this phenomena of nation-wide injunctions where the lowest level judge, district judges, try to bind the entire nation and bind the president in their initial decision. That is not what we have meant by the judicial power under our Constitution," " BILL BARR AG

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Now it's lawlessness to follow a court precedent!

Doing whatever Sarcastr0's mindmasters do not like is lawlessness!

[Riva]

That was before the judicial insurrection. Anything goes now.

[John F. Carr]

Judicial review has been expanded by statute since then.

[ReaderY]

It’s still good law. Federal courts cannot use mandamus under the All Writs Act to order federal officials to make or change administrative decisions. However, a number of subsequent statutes, especially the Administrative Procedures Act, gave federal courts jurisdiction to review most federal administrative actions and decisions. But the Administrative Procedures Act doesn’t give federal courts jurisdiction over every decision. And when the APA or one of the other jurisdiction-granting statutes doesn’t cover a situation, Decatur v.Pauling is still there to say that a writ of mandamus is unavailable and there’s no judicial review.

The key thing to understand about the case is that all the Court was doing was interpreting ordinary law, the scope and proper use of a common-law writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act. It wasn’t in any way interpreting the Constitution or deciding what was possible or permissable for Congress to do. It was only deciding what Congress had, up to thet time, done.

So when Congress passed new statutes granting federal courts jurisdiction over most administrative decisions, the state of the law changed. Once again, the case is still very much alive because to this day it’s still the case that if Congress doesn’t specifically grant jurisdiction through some statute, courts don’t have any.

[ReaderY]

Let me put it this way. Congress made a mistake when it passed the special law granting a special pension to Mr. Decatur’s widow. It didn’t include a section granting federal courts jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit to claim the pension under the statute. If it had, there would have been no problem.

One thing Congress has learned from the case is not to make that mistake again, and not to foreclose jurisdiction unless it really means it. That’s why there are so many jurisdiction-granting statutes today.

[Kazinski]

So what is the jurisdiction granting statute that Boasberg is relying on?

It seems to be the APA, which does not grant jurisdiction over Executive orders or proclamations, from the Administration petition to the Supreme Court linked below by Rloquitur.

"Implementing the Proclamation, they add, is “arbitrary and
capricious” — the quintessential APA challenge.31
But the APA is not the right vehicle for two reasons. First,
it provides review only when there is “no other adequate
remedy in a court.”32 As I will explain below, another avenue
for review is available here — a petition for habeas corpus.
Second, the Proclamation here is not an “agency action.”
It is a Presidential Proclamation. And the “President is not an
agency.”33 So the APA does not authorize review of the
Proclamation. Where the “final action complained of is that of
the President” — here, the President’s Proclamation under the
Alien Enemies Act — the APA does not provide a basis for
judicial review."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kristi Noem has gone to El Salvador to publicize DOGE/MAGA barbarity. The Guardian, showing a picture of Noem posed in front of caged prisoners stripped from the waist up, reports that Noem said this:

I also want everybody to know, if you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you can face,” Noem said in a video posted on X from the Cecot prison. “Know that this facility is one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people."

To fully understand what this implies, it is not sufficient to rely only on American news media, which have not sufficiently pictured the detention practices used at CECOT, and elsewhere in the El Salvadoran penal system.

Interested readers with strong stomachs can get more visual insight. Google, "3135 El Salvador Prison Stock Photos & High-Res Pictures." Understand that according to El Salvadoran strongman Nayib Bukele the intention for CECOT—which was constructed and opened in 2022 at Bukele's behest—is that no one seized and consigned there will ever be released.

Imagine yourself innocent of any crime, seized without warning by ICE in the United States, and without any process of law shipped to El Salvador immediately, to commence lifetime endurance of the conditions the Getty Images illustrate. Imagine the moral corruption required to pose for cameras and threaten our nation that way.

[Kazinski]

Were they stripped or just had their shirts off?
I can tell you from personal experience that in tropical countries with high humidity men often go shirtless voluntarily.

So nobody has been released in the two years since the prison opened.

My DDGo AI assist also tells me:
"El Salvador's murder rate has significantly decreased, achieving a record low of 114 homicides in 2024, which is a 98% drop since 2015 when it had over 6,600 homicides. This decline is attributed to strict government measures and a state of emergency aimed at combating gang violence."

.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, please do not pretend that you have yet looked at the Getty images. Go ahead, take a look, and then if you think you can, own it here publicly.

[Kazinski]

I saw Noem's picture and the video she released.

And while I don't doubt the immates are being held under harsh conditions, at least they are safe from the formerly rampant gang violence.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Still have not looked at the Getty images? You are a coward.

I will help you out with a description. When you see more than a thousand men at once, each shackled by leg irons, with hands cuffed, and a short chain connecting the leg irons to the handcuffs, jammed together into tight physical contact with each other, forced into kneeling, bent-over postures, and not one shirt in sight, nothing voluntary is going on.

You stupidly say, ". . . at least they are safe from the formerly rampant gang violence." Nobody held in that prison can ever be described as, "safe," by anyone who is not a maniac.

They are sleeping jammed together on metal platforms, without bedding of any kind, stacked in bunks 4-high, in cells which allocate 6.5 square feet per prisoner. Sound safe to you?

If you were not so disengaged you insist on turning your back, you could foresee that a time may come when American complicity—and indeed exploitation—of what is going on at CECOT will backfire, and deliver extreme peril here. CECOT was built as an aspect of civil war, to inflict on indigenous rebels a victory founded in brutality and terror. That war is not yet over. Likely, only extermination of the indigenous can end it. Or a revolution to overturn El Salvador's regime could end it, and release the brutalized prisoners of CECOT to go where they will.

It is the business of the future to be unpredictable, and thus dangerous. DOGE/MAGA is needlessly courting extreme danger for this nation, to indulge its own corrupt taste for barbarity, and to flaunt that as political virtue. The point has become too obvious to ignore. The intent is to cow resistance to totalitarianism here.

You apparently feel that is a great idea. It is an unwise and ugly habit to reach brutal conclusions without thinking about them.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Won't someone please think of the gang rapists, murders, and thugs?!?!?

[Commenter_XY]

Spare us the performative outrage. They each had agency in their life and consciously made bad choices, you know, choices like drug dealing, rape, human trafficking, murder, extortion, etc.

I'm just glad the gangbangers have tattoos, b/c the tattoos are like a Mark of Cain. Entirely apropos.

[not guilty]

"Spare us the performative outrage. They each had agency in their life and consciously made bad choices, you know, choices like drug dealing, rape, human trafficking, murder, extortion, etc."

And you claim to know that based on the due process they were afforded?

[Stephen Lathrop]

i thought it was cool that he thought to use, "each." A skilled liar will not pass up opportunity to supply bogus particularization.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, they were due to be processed, and they were. You just don't like the result of applying law you don't agree with.

[David Nieporent]

I don't like authoritarians celebrating rounding up people they don't like because of their race based on fake pretexts. You know who that describes?

[Joe_dallas]

Neither do any of the other commentators here like that!

But thats not what is happening as much as you would like to insinuate.

[David Nieporent]

That is exactly what's happening, and we know that because the Trump administration is refusing to undertake the hearings at which they could demonstrate to the contrary.

[Sarcastr0]

You have no idea what they did.

The administration has backed up nothing, and indeed claims it doesn't need to.

You're into that police state mentality.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah Sarcastr0, ICE just snatched 230 people at random off the mean streets of the new USSR America, photographed them, fingerprinted them, processed them, listened to their sad song of complete innocence, shackled their asses into a plane seat, and shipped them off to a certain death prison in El Salvador. For reasons (just make up one, like we live in a dystopian nightmare or something).

Is that your contention. Unsurprising, but weak nonetheless. I note this is all being adjudicated in our Courts. If there is illegality in our documented conduct (doubtful), then those people who broke the law will be held accountable. I don't have a problem with that.

But by all means, proclaim your sympathy for the illegal alien gangbangers. Really. And encourage your blue state Congressman to do the same. Please.

[Brett Bellmore]

While I don't think ICE is just picking people at random and calling them alien gang members, I don't like the shortfall of procedure to make sure that they aren't. This is one of those cases where I approve of Trump's end, but think his means are questionable.

But you know what he's doing here, and he's doing it very effectively: He's baiting the left into defending people he knows he can prove are monsters. And they're going for the bait.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's authoritarianism is just a clever political ploy!

The fact that you like this argument shows how turned you've gotten.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Sarcastr0, it is a clever ploy, and you're falling for it, because you're so devoted to that stupid "Trump can't be clever, he's a moron!" idiocy.

He grabs some people who can be proven to be really nasty monsters, doesn't follow proper procedure, (And I agree he SHOULD have followed proper procedure!) and you rise to the bait like a fat walleye going for a well tied fly.

Then once he's got you hooked, you're committed to defending them, out comes the proof they're monsters.

It's absurdly predictable, but you can't see it coming, because you've blinded yourself to his tactics by insisting that he's too stupid to HAVE tactics.

[Commenter_XY]

Then the Courts will address that = questionable means

If you have an unbalanced situation, you need an unbalanced response to bring back equilibrium. For instance, when you diet, you restrict calories or certain foods. A diet is an unbalanced response to address an unbalanced situation (obesity).

POTUS Trump is the counterbalance that the majority of the popular vote voted for, in order to address an unbalanced situation in America.

There is something to the 80/20 theory you have. I tend to think there is something more than just that.

[Sarcastr0]

Next maybe the Trump Admin will start killing liberal voters.
Think of the effect on voting populations!
How politically adroit!

There's not much distinction between the above argument and your studied myopia to liberty, morality, and rule of law

[Commenter_XY]

No need to kill liberal voters who are doing splendidly neutering themselves politically. Don't we need the entertainment value of watching them spaz out for the next 46 months?

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "...defending people he knows he can prove are monsters..."

And that's either delusion or a lie. Because Trump can't prove they are "monsters". Judging by the accounts of some deportees, many weren't. Maybe even most. This was a numbers operation to create a stunt & photo-op. When tattoos common to gang and non-gang members alike is sufficient to destroy someone's life without the slightest due process, you know you'll dealing with a mass roundup for publicity purposes alone.

Police in cities do this all the time to create a headline. But they have the courts as backstop to cleanup the human wreckage after the gimmick is over. And guess what? They couldn't even get their tattoo bullshit straight, sending a former soccer play to a hell-hole prison for having soccer ink. There've been multiple accounts they took people just because they were in the company of a "target". There was one recent story about them dragging off a sobbing gay barber. Who knew Tren de Aragua was so woke?

The Trump White House lies about everything, everybody, and at every opportunity; sometimes they lie for sport alone. And yet you think they carefully & conscientiously vetted the human cattle for their fascist photo op? You're barely more likely to find a real gang member in that group than a 150yr old Social Security recipient or Haitians eating cats and dogs. Trump knows exactly what his supporters want : Racist porn.

So two corrections, Brett:

1. Trump knows he can't prove anything. That's why he's fighting any release of details. That's why he suddenly claimed he didn't sign the order behind this, throwing Rubio under the bus. But DJT does believe he can sell them as monsters with lies.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/21/politics/trump-signature-alien-enemies-act-proclamation/index.html

2. But you, Brett Bellmore, are defending monsters.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Judging by the accounts of some deportees, many weren't."

LOL!

[bernard11]

I don't think ICE is just picking people at random and calling them alien gang members, I don't like the shortfall of procedure to make sure that they aren't. This is one of those cases where I approve of Trump's end, but think his means are questionable.

Here's Brett, preparing his back door as usual.

"Questionable!!?" How about illegal, unConstitutional, and disgraceful? Suppose there is one innocent among. those seized. What would you think? Or ten? Just how perfect an operation do you think this was?

grb is absolutely right. Brett and XY absolutely wrong.

First, the left is not defending alien gangbangers. It is defending the rule of law, the right to due process, and those detainees who did nothing wrong. Do you want to bet there are none? How much, Mr. Libertarian?

And here's XY:

If there is illegality in our documented conduct (doubtful), then those people who broke the law will be held accountable.

What kind of joke is this. Let's say a number of those deported are not involved with any gang, and were grabbed and shipped off to be tortured based on flawed "evidence" which they had no opportunity to challenge.

Now what? I'd say that's a plainly impeachable offense. Do you agree, or will you continue to make stupid, ill-informed excuses, and assure us that the sun will rise and the sun will set, etc.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "LOL!"

The other day Brett constructed an elaborate (read, dishonesty) excuse to explain-away Trump's threats against Greenland. However silly, Brett's excuse was finely wrought & intricately built with an effort. But within an hour, Trump exposed all of Bellmore's efforts with one of his crudest threats yet.

Trump is always doing that. Brett labors hard to be a good Cultist only to have Trump cut him off at the knees. If it wasn't so obviously absurd, I'd suspect DJT of doing it on purpose, just to show his utter contempt for Brett and all Brett-like losers.

And here we have Brett's faux-hearty LOL right above Marco Rubio beginning the "gang membership" walk-back:

" It was a combination of people – gang members, people we knew were involved in activities that were not productive to the United States, all of them removable in terms of our laws."

https://www.state.gov/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-and-guyanese-president-irfaan-ali-at-a-joint-press-availability/

I'd criticize poor Brett for his poor sense of timing, but it's really not his fault.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, if you think it is impeachable conduct, then I urge you to call your Congressman and demand s/he introduce articles of impeachment for the House to vote upon. It is an 'open and shut' case, right? The Congress will agree with you.

Do you need the number for your Congressman?

[David Nieporent]

And that's either delusion or a lie. Because Trump can't prove they are "monsters". Judging by the accounts of some deportees, many weren't.

The Trump administration admitted, in one of its early filings with Boasberg, that many of the people had committed no crimes. Indeed, it lamented that fact, because it meant they didn't know much about those people.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — That imputes a critique-proof power to violate human rights, while calling a sucker anyone who does try to defend human rights. You cannot make that argument admissible anywhere without blessing human rights violations without limit.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 12 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
And that's either delusion or a lie. Because Trump can't prove they are "monsters". Judging by the accounts of some deportees, many weren't.

The Trump administration admitted, in one of its early filings with Boasberg, that many of the people had committed no crimes.

So according the DN - being in the country illegally is no longer a crime? Deflection?

[David Nieporent]

So according the DN - being in the country illegally is no longer a crime?

1) Not necessarily, no. It never was. Entry without inspection is the crime.
2) How the fuck do you know they were in the country illegally?

[bernard11]

ICE just snatched 230 people at random off the mean streets of the new USSR America, photographed them, fingerprinted them, processed them, listened to their sad song of complete innocence, shackled their asses into a plane seat, and shipped them off to a certain death prison in El Salvador.

And your laughable contention is that ICE conducted a thorough and careful investigation of each individual they arrested, and having done that, they reasonably decided that there was no need to let them challenge any of the evidence, or to publicize any of it. Someone might get a lawyer, after all, and you know where that leads.

Nor was it considered adequate to simply deport them. No. Get them in a famously harsh foreign prison so their legal recourse will, as a practical matter, be highly limited.

You know, even the Red Queen was willing to have a trial after sentence was pronounced. Apparently MAGA has even less regard for the law than that.

[Kazinski]

You are actually illustrating why Boasberg is so totally off base.

He certified a nationwide class which is totally inappropriate when the "class members" have such widely different facts and personal circumstances.

The Administration concedes that any of the detainees can file a habeas petition to contest whether they are aliens, above 14, and members of TdA, and thus not subject to the AEA.

But Boasberg advised the petitioners to drop their habeas petitions, because he doesn't have jurisdiction, and then changed their claim to an APA claim, even though that should be precluded because they haven't exhausted their other remedies such as habeas.

The APA doesn't apply to presidential proclamations, and the district court dodged the issue rather than rule on it.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah Sarcastr0, ICE just snatched 230 people at random off the mean streets of the new USSR America, photographed them, fingerprinted them, processed them, listened to their sad song of complete innocence, shackled their asses into a plane seat, and shipped them off to a certain death prison in El Salvador.

Exactly. And yet this doesn't bother you, for some *cough*racism*cough* reason.

If there is illegality in our documented conduct (doubtful), then those people who broke the law will be held accountable.

Held accountable by whom? It's the president doing it, and the president is presently immune from accountability for lawbreaking.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Plus, all his minions now believe that Trump will pardon them.

Why wouldn't he? He doesn't need them to be languishing in jail to help him win the next election (like he did the J6 "hostages")...

[Joe_dallas]

I agree with brett's & commentator's comment -

The implication that ice rounded up a bunch of innocents is inane.

[Sarcastr0]

Hold the presses, Joe_dallas is again appealing to vibes and attacking anyone who doesn't!

[David Nieporent]

Come on, their guilt is obvious… to anyone who has taken high school biology.

[bernard11]

The implication that they both cared and were careful is inane.

[Joe_dallas]

So you and gaslight0 are going to go with ICE rounding innocents?

you guys keep up with your inane conspiracy. Try to keep that reality derangement symptom in check.

[bernard11]

So you and gaslight0 are going to go with ICE rounding innocents?

You have problems with reading, or logic?

I'm going with: ICE, like other LE organizations, sometimes makes mistakes, and it's quite likely that they made some here. In the ordinary course of events we try to catch those mistakes through hearings, trials, whatever, where the accused has a right to defend himself. None of that silliness here.

In addition, we base punishments on the seriousness of the conduct of the individual, if he is found guilty. Sending everyone to an El Salvador prison for an indeterminate length of time with no check on the process whatsoever is the act of a tyrant. You should be ashamed to endorse it.

[Joe_dallas]

So you and gaslight0 are going to go with ICE rounding innocents?

You have problems with reading, or logic?

I'm going with: ICE, like other LE organizations,

no I dont have problem with reading or logic . Read both your original statement and Gaslight0 - quite simply Your rebuttal is contrary to your original statement. Sorry if I left out the part where Sarcastro implied rounding up innocents was intentional. Did you miss sarcastro statement?

[bernard11]

First of all, Sarcastro and I are two different people, which you seem not to understand.

Second, you utterly fail reading comprehension as to my comments. You are one of those who accept, as an article of faith, that government is a bunch of hopelessly incompetent bunglers. But suddenly, when they do something your reptilian brain likes, they are models of efficiency and couldn't possibly be wrong about any of these people.

You're a joke. Go back to your T-accounts.

[Joe_dallas]

B11 read your comment - both of you were insinuating that ICE was rounding up innocents. both you and gaslight0 simply got caught pushing an inane narrative.

[Joe_dallas]

B11 - you should also remember from yesterday that you comment stating illegal aliens can get DL's in 19 states. You fail to note, getting DL's in those states still require some form of ID which is exactly the point I made.

That seriously undercuts the talking point that ICE is rounding up innocents and / or US citizens. All you did was confirmed my point

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hay Rubio is walking back the gang connection:

https://www.state.gov/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-and-guyanese-president-irfaan-ali-at-a-joint-press-availability/
" It was a combination of people – gang members, people we knew were involved in activities that were not productive to the United States, all of them removable in terms of our laws."

So much for trusting them on the facts. But surely you can trust the Admin on the law!!

Congrats to a lot of commenters on here for another 'Fell for It Again' award for their collections!

[grb]

So Brett's "monsters" above morph into people "involved in activities that were not productive to the United States". And what does that do to the Alien Enemies Act of 1798? It wasn't remotely credible to begin with, but even less so now.

No wonder Trump suddenly decided he had nothing to do with signing the proclamation. No wonder he threw Marco Rubio under the bus.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

People "involved in activities that were not productive to the United States" covers virtually everyone in this Administration...

[bernard11]

They each had agency in their life and consciously made bad choices, you know, choices like drug dealing, rape, human trafficking, murder, extortion, etc.

You know this about each and every one how? Because Trump says so?

You're deranged.

[Don Nico]

I see that grb is lying about my SARS-CoV-2 commentary, which has been proved to be correct. Yet he thinks that criticism of the CDC when public health agencies around the world were saying the opposite was a right wing plot. Pathetic.

[Joe_dallas]

FWIW - you happen to be one of the few commentators here on the covid subject that has demonstrated actual knowledge and possessing the science and math skills necessary to evaluate the quality of the studies associated with covid. Which is greatly appreciated.

[Swede425]

LOL!
I wonder if any of them will reconsider their life choices moving forward?
Maybe Michael Moore was right, and a future cancer cure can be found somewhere among them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Swede425 — Try to pay attention. Actual cancer researchers here from abroad are already being not only fired from their jobs by DOGE/MAGA, but also subjected to threats of deportation. Now explicitly including deportation to CECOT, thanks to Noem. Not a laughing matter, actually.

[Swede425]

Gosh, if only there was a system in place whereby citizens from other countries could apply to be citizens of this country.
And then we could look at those citizens and see it they'd be a benefit to America and decide if we actually want them here.
But no, instead we just round up tattooed engineers, scientists, and doctors and send them to prison in another country!
GODDAMMIT TRUMP!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

What was Dr. Mengle researching?

Should all be forgiven if one merely researches cancer?
Or should we remove undesirable people even if they are?

And remember that one can always self-deport.

[bernard11]

Oh fuck you.

You are aiding and abetting the destruction of the country. Apparently you want no one here who is smarter than you are.

That calls for serious depopulation.

[Satchmo_Lives]

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-arrival-of-inmates-belonging-to-the-ms-13-and-18-gangs-news-photo/1248376518?adppopup=true

Is this what you mean? They are in leg irons and handcuffs while being moved. The "short" chain connecting the leg irons to the cuffs is perfectly long enough so their hands are where they would normally be. They make them stoop. All seems perfectly reasonable for the worst offenders in El Salvador--your pearl clutching aside.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-handout-picture-provided-by-the-salvadoran-news-photo/2157327319?adppopup=true

Again, bunching them together prior to being moved seems a reasonable precaution. I don't know how long they are held like that. But neither do you. I have zero problems up to two hours. They ain't your 85 year old grandmother.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Satchmo_Lives — No, not what I mean, although at least your second link is also found among the images I suggested—the Getty 3,000+ image trove.

That is where you discover that what you say you have no problem with for two hours is customary way of life for thousands of prisoners at a time. And you get to see the hellish conditions in the mass incarceration cells. You think bunking the prisoners together, by dozens or hundreds, with multiple inmates to a bunk, on bare metal surfaces with no bedding at all, with a floor-space allocation of 6.5 square feet per prisoner, in cells so deep that guards cannot even see half of them from outside, is safe?

You also see that even outside the cells, the guards make it a practice to force nearly naked prisoners into full body contact in groups. When that happens, you don't get to stand up without another prisoner in full body contact behind you, with his face pushed into contact against the back of your head and neck. And that guy has someone behind him doing the same. All forced into some corner as tightly as possible.

It is mass sadism. You approve of it? That's on you.

You approve of it for people with asylum claims already adjudicated as potentially meritorious, because they were fleeing gangs, not members of gangs? Then maybe you have a well-earned claim to the CECOT treatment yourself. Just get the Ds in office, and without any change of procedures at all, you can be snatched off the street and find yourself there in a matter of hours, for life.

Note to all: No pearl clutching if that happens to Satchmo_Lives.

[Satchmo_Lives]

All of my pics are from your link. Be more specific on your links if you want to point out particular pics. Not my fault I couldn't guess which ones you wanted.

They were individuals with a criminal history. I don't really care that the Biden admin handed millions of people, without vetting, a court hearing to adjudicate the merits of their asylum claim. Individuals coached on how to proclaim asylum by NGOs paid for by the American taxpayer. The fact they were let in under Biden's EOs and regulations doesn't help their cause IMO.

By "nearly naked" you mean shirtless in a tropical environment with high humidity. Yeah, I will consider it abuse when they make them wear thermals and down coats. You don't even know if it is a choice as many pictures show other inmates wearing shirts.

As far as me being eligible for CECOT, I am an American citizen and have committed no illegal acts. Get back to me when Trump deports citizens.

[Kazinski]

Ok I perused the photos at the link.

They people in the photo's are universally covered with gang tatoos, almost universally including the head or face, explicitly conveying the message "don't fuck with me or you'll die", now the message it conveys is "I'm fucked, I am in here until I die".

What was happening in El Salvador before 2019, was a living hell for the people, and now the living hell is confined to the prison, and I am 100% OK with that.

[Sarcastr0]

You are not a tattoo expert.

You've also missed that the 'they're all gang members' bit has already been walked back. Fell for it again, did you?

You do seem very excited about trading freedom for security. May your chains set lightly upon you etc. etc.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Fell for it again,"

For some one who defended the non compos mentis Biden to the bitter end, you are hardly in position to criticize others on that basis.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This entire discussion isn’t exactly a model of clarity, but I believe Stephen Lathrop and Kazinski are talking about photos of the Salvadoran prisoners originally sent there, not the people sent there from the U.S. recently.

[Stephen Lathrop]

That is certainly correct in my case, which I thought would be made obvious by mention of prisoners by the thousands, and of course by the dates attributed to the photographs.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. I was thinking it was the Noem video.

[David Nieporent]

The Noem video is fake. Look at the prisoners in the background — they're on a loop.

[Kazinski]

I can read this one OK:

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/member-of-the-barrio-18-gang-remains-in-a-cell-inside-at-news-photo/1721771426

[Sarcastr0]

"This one."

Quite a descoping.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So Kazinski, time, finally, to face the music. You concede the prison is a living hell. You know, and indeed advocate, that people from America can be snatched up by force, and without due process sent to that living hell, apparently for life. Without any subsequent recourse. You okay with that, and if so, why?

Please answer as if you were aware that you yourself could be as vulnerable to that treatment as anyone else, especially if targeted by a national administration which did not like what you said in public. Remember, resort to rights, and reliance on due process, are both barred from your reply, by you own advocacy. It's just about who wins an election. That's you.

Now figure out how to get out of CECOT, or avoid going there.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Also, Kazinski, the tattoos. I do not see them as you do. I concede that some look like gang tattoos. Which in any specific instance could, of course, indicate an earlier affiliation since renounced. They could also indicate defensive displays, to find some visible means to keep from being targeted by violent gangsters. For that, facial displays might be the safest and most readily manifest.

Other tattoos strike me as modern updates on indigenous art, and remarkably well done. Your apparent aversion to facial tattoos strikes me as possibly at odds with customary indigenous tattooing practices.

Tattooed faces have for centuries been remarked upon as customary among some of the world's populations, including from Africa, Pacific Islands, and South America. The custom seems commonplace, and to have been separately initiated many times worldwide.

I have no idea whether that applies to central American indigenes. If it does not apply as a matter of history, perhaps they have picked up the custom from more-recent exposures to influences from those other cultures. I doubt you know the facts any better than I do.

I am certain if it were your own liberty to stay out of CECOT at stake, you would not be willing to gamble it on someone else's untested assertion. Even the present import of an ostensible gang tattoo is a fact worth inquiry, before consigning someone to living hell for life on the basis of it.

Your entire argument seems to boil down to willingness to inflict boundless cruelty, without any previous institutional approvals at all. And of course without thought or care for reciprocal application against you of the principles you advocate against others.

You ought to think that over.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Imagine you thinking you are helping ordinary immigrants by defending Tren de Aragua.In my college classes it was Hispanic background who MOST opposed Biden's open borders. You are pure Clinton and Carter, Miami and Fort Chafee , thousands of murderers , rapists,and druggies let in by people like you

[Dan Schiavetta]

She looked like a female Himmler, though Himmler personally was a modest church going man who did not prance around with hair extensions and gloat about his victims.

As for whether the prisoners really were criminals, how do we know that? There was no due process.

[Swede425]

Dan doesn't like strong women who get the job done.
He does, however, have a soft spot for the sweaty, tattooed thugs standing behind her.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, Danny.
You do you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"hair extensions"

Sexist much?

What does that have to with anything? Lots of women use hair extensions.

[Satchmo_Lives]

You can tell they were all devout Catholics who attended Mass three times a week by all the gang tattoos.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, go to Turkey, which is where the Dumb C*** is from, and do exactly what she did -- except substitute Armenians for Palestinians.

Tell me how that goes...

She's lucky she wasn't handed to the troops for entertainment.

[Estragon]

“She's lucky she wasn't handed to the troops for entertainment”

Stunning comment. And I don’t think we’re even close to the bottom yet with this kind of stuff. We may, in fact, now be the baddies.

[grb]

Ed has a problem with women.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Ed is being realistic.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bosnian_War

Honestly think that is the only time something like this has happened?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, Ed is being realistic.

Well, there’s a first time for everything.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bosnian_War

“Our soldiers (law enforcement?) are just like some of the worst war criminals in modern history”, says a guy who claims to love America.

[Frank Drackman]

Have you seen her? She'd yell "Rape!!!!" the guys would yell "No!!!!!!" (HT Rodney D)

[bernard11]

So you think Turkish government practices are just fine, and we should emulate them?

You are worse than a piece of shit, which is part of a useful process.

The woman wrote an Op-ed, for Pete's sake.

[Commenter_XY]

She did more than just an Op-Ed. She decided to cheer for the wrong team. That same wrong team is currently holding American hostages, and killed many other Americans. She FAFO. C-Ya!

She can cheer them on from Turkey. Too bad about the degree.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Too bad about the degree."

It's in "childcare", so no loss.

[bernard11]

She decided to cheer for the wrong team.

And what did this "cheering" consist of? I've seen nothing that suggests she was involved in any vandalism or the like.

Trump is taking lessons from his KGB buddy, Putin.

[David Nieporent]

Shorter C_XY: "She didn't just write an op/ed… she wrote an op/ed I disagreed with!"

I'm not sure what's worse: that he thinks this is a legitimate argument, or that he's comfortable with lying about what she said.

[Frank Drackman]

She shot one of her dogs for not fetching fast enough. What do you think she'll do to Terrorists?

[Riva]

You mean imagine yourself as a TdA animal, innocently trying to collect “rent” from your victims, when suddenly your actions on behalf of a narco-terrorist state are interrupted by federal law enforcement. I can understand their confusion, after years of Biden’s corruption they just assumed law enforcement was on their side, like down in Venezuela.

[grb]

It's kinda funny: As more evidence emerges that many (if not most) of these deportees were not gang members, the more hysterical & shrill the Cult insists they are. The two phenomena are in perfect sync.

And here we even have bot-generated porn fiction, surely meant to be read by racists with one hand on the keyboard.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You mean like all the people falsely accused of being Communist in the 50s? The ones that we found out 40 years later actually were, and documented as such in the Soviet's records?

Or all the former Nazis who claimed that they really weren't?

[Riva]

Yeah, more evidence, that sounds as convincing as a letter from 51 intel professionals.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Was Little Marco involved in the letter from 51 former intelligence officials, too?

[Riva]

No, he wasn’t involved in the garbage lies orchestrated by corrupt the Biden campaign. I have no idea why you would even suggest that. Did you read it in a dossier somewhere? Or maybe a fat col. from the NSC told you after hearing it from a friend? Or maybe you were “accidentally “ added to a signal chat?

[damikesc]

Look at me, over here, not giving a shit.

Your side treated Americans like shit. I will not mourn non-Americans receiving that treatment.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/406064

Rubio: US revoked visas of over 300 anti-Israel ‘lunatics’

US Secretary of State says America will not give student visas to people who want to come to the US to do things like 'vandalizing universities, harassing students taking over buildings,' and those who do these things will lose their visas and right to be in the US.

They cannot remove these hamas homies and harpies fast enough. There are many more. They will be identified, detained, and deported. We do not want them here. These people are nothing more than vandals, preying on the good intentions of this country.

[Sarcastr0]

Stasi apologist.

[Commenter_XY]

Sure Sarcastr0, America has become the USSR in just 67 days. Who knew?! By all means, tell us all about it.

If you invite me to your home as a dinner guest, and I come to your home and fingerpaint on your living room wall, stop up the toilets in your house, put out cigarettes using your carpet as an ashtray....what would you do?

You would tell me to GTF out of your home and never come back. And you would be 100% right to do so.

This is no different. They are guests who became vandals. They leave.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Gaslighto, you are.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Why do you continue to work for a Stasi regime?

[Armchair]

Sarcastr0 seems really upset that these antisemites are having their visas revoked.

Perhaps he was planning on meeting up with them later for coffee. For, you know, things.

[Don Nico]

That is because deep inside he knows that it is always the fault of the Jews.

[Sarcastr0]

When have I ever said anything like that?

You're a fucking asshole.

[Don Nico]

S_0. Sorry but that is the de facto effect of your advocacy.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "You're a fucking asshole"

That's Don Nico. The other day he was in pious-mode, decrying the standards of discourse in this forum. Now he's a hack troll. Soon he'll be wailing how people are meanie to him like a fragile little child. He has nothing to say. He has no point to make. He just flits between his various posturing personas as the whim of hypocrisy drives him.

I became familiar with our Don during the debates over covid. Then his objective was to provide cover for the Right's pandemic lies, so he does weasel with a purpose.

[Joe_dallas]

grb 6 hours ago
"I became familiar with our Don during the debates over covid. Then his objective was to provide cover for the Right's pandemic lies, so he does weasel with a purpose."

Nico happens to be one of the few people commenting here that has gotten most every statement he has made which turned out to be exactly correct.
Nico's statements on the CDC and the CDC's honesty has been spot on.
GRB - virtually nothing you have stated on covid has turned out to be correct.

[David Nieporent]

Bookkeeper_Joe is back to being a fake microbiologist today, because he passed high school biology.

[Joe_dallas]

your cs comment doesnt change the fact that my statement is correct.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I don't really care if you said it or not. You're the master of making shit up and attributing to other people. If you were a little more intellectually honest in your deliberations, perhaps people might afford you the same courtesy.

I know I am slow, so I'll ask just one more time. Why is the best method to figure out why women don't choose STEM is to ask women who choose STEM about their feelings? I just can't get my head around thinking the best way would be to ask the women who didn't choose STEM why they didn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Playing devil's advocate, I guess the reason you'd ask women who did chose STEM, because you know they wanted to be in STEM. So if they have complaints that weren't serious enough to cause they to change majors away from STEM, you might conclude that other women who wanted to be in STEM had the same complaints, only stronger.

[Sarcastr0]

2 people who don't like social science trying to puzzle out how to answer a social science question.

[Sarcastr0]

Evopsyche does love their just-so stories.

This is a great example of that kind of science. "I'll bet this is true. If it's true, I'll bet it'd look like this. Yes, it looks like this. BOOM SCIENCE."

It assumes a causal narrative, and then takes a correlation and jumps it up.

[damikesc]

Social "science".

Hee Hee.

Such an oxymoron.

When "social science" is able to replicate experiments, we can talk.

...then again, "Real" science is having a huge replication problem as well.

Perhaps having the government funding this research might lead to sloppiness to get the results the government wants.

[Satchmo_Lives]

OK. I can see that. Still doesn't seem better than simply asking non-STEM.

That is kind of what he said. He said surveys show women feel discriminated against in STEM. Considering, as of 2022, women made up 59.7% of students in the U.S. They have been pushing women in college for 50 years to the point it is now a +20pt gap. Discrimination? I contend women choose social sciences. Which has resulted in an explosion of those degrees. He says they don't choose non-STEM, they are forced out of STEM because of discrimination

[Brett Bellmore]

Some people just have trouble accepting that men and women aren't interchangeable. That we actually have different inclinations and competencies. That our brains can actually be distinguished from each other, and this has implications for what we're good at doing.

For instance, Sex Difference On Spatial Skill Test Linked To Brain Structure

There's a pretty significant difference, on average, between male and female spacial reasoning, and spacial reasoning can be pretty important in STEM.

[Nelson]

“ I just can't get my head around thinking the best way would be to ask the women who didn't choose STEM why they didn't”

How exactly would you go about finding women who considered STEM, but decided against it? Because asking people who never had any desire to be in STEM won’t help at all.

[Kazinski]

I can attest to that, my first wife always wanted to be an artist, although clearly she had the aptitude for STEM if it interested her, HS GPA, her father was a Calculus Prof, both older sisters computer programmers.

Nope, once she got in a artists studio that's all she ever wanted.

Same with my Daughter, she wanted to be a pastry chef, and dropped out of college. Then came to her senses when she decided getting up at 4am and making desserts it old, so she went back to school got her doctorate in Pharmacy.

[Sarcastr0]

You're no friend of Jews cheapening accusations of antisemitism in service of fascist apologists like Commenter.

Why would I engage with you on anything, if this is who you are?

[Commenter_XY]

Sarcastr0, I am not taking any shots at you for antisemitism*. You do it to yourself.

*I take plenty of other shots. It is a target rich environment, as it were.

[jb]

It's hard to parse your "meeting up with the antisemites for coffee" any other way, tbh.

[Commenter_XY]

Wasn't me who wrote that, jb. I took Sarcastr0 to task for something he wrote in November 2023; it crossed the line. I called him out for it right then and there. The matter is now closed for me. I am not going to pile on.

He does it to himself.

[jb]

Oops, sorry for misattributing that to you!

[Don Nico]

Anti-Semites target Jews more than necessary. You don't do that.
You do have TDS more than is necessary; that hurts your message.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You're no friend of Jews"

I think he is. Its not up to you to decide though, you aren't Jewish.

[Sarcastr0]

You have said that a American Jews you disagree with are Hamas collaborators.

So you've already killed your credibility on this.

[Bob from Ohio]

"disagree"

No, its their naked support of Hamas that makes them Hamas collaborators

[Don Nico]

That is again where you are wrong. Those American Jews who apologize for Hamas are just into narcissistic self-loathing.

[Josh R]

I'm upset by it, just like I was when the Nazis were unable to march in Skokie in 1977. Permitting speech you hate is a pillar of freedom of speech.

[Commenter_XY]

Sure, for citizens = permit speech you hate.

Not so for invited guests.

[not guilty]

XY, not to go all Glenn Beck on you, but do you know who else perpetrated incessant repetition of the Big Lie?

Here's a clue:

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

You are not in good company, XY.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, the matter is now being adjudicated in our Courts. So I feel comfortable that there are federal district court judges that see it the same way I do. Reasonable people disagree on whether foreign aliens have the same P&I as citizens for freedom of speech. I don't think they do, under INA. It is that simple.

This leaves aside their documented conduct (it wasn't 'just' speech that got them tossed), and lying on federal forms as to their political beliefs and associations.

[not guilty]

You keep referring to "the same P&I as citizens for freedom of speech." You know damn well that that is a red herring. IOW, a Big Lie. You should not throw around legal jargon when you don't know what it means. What you -- or what I -- think the law is means jack shit. Ipse dixit doesn't feed the bulldog.

Free speech is not a privilege or immunity of citizenship. It is a fundamental liberty protected by due process. "It has been determined that the conception of liberty under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the right of free speech." Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368 (1931). "The freedom of speech and of the press secured by the First Amendment against abridgment by the United States is similarly secured to all persons by the Fourteenth against abridgment by a state." Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 160 (1939) (emphasis added).

"Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982). Due Process and Equal Protection guaranties are not confined to the protection of citizens. "These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction" of the United States. Id., at 212.

You may hate Plyler v. Doe with the heat of a thousand suns, but your splenetic diatribes will not spook the words off the page, nor the pixels off the monitor. That decision remains the law of the land, binding on all American courts, unless and until it is overruled or modified. (Which I do acknowledge may happen sooner rather than later.)

BTW, the quote about propaganda I referred to upthread is from Mein Kampf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany Your orange complected hero is reportedly a huge fan thereof. As I said, you are not in good company.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, freedom of speech IS a P&I of citizenship, as confirmed by Congressional debate over the 14th amendment. Then, of course, the Slaughterhouse Court effectively wrote P&I out of the 14th amendment in order to end Reconstruction, and when the Court was finally ready to put the 14th back into the game, instead of admitting what they had done, they invented the oxymoron "substantive due process".

But there is no question that incorporation was supposed to be via P&I, which are explicitly reserved for citizens.

[not guilty]

Fair enough. I should have said that free speech is not exclusively a privilege or immunity of citizenship, to the exclusion of noncitizens' right to free speech and expression.

As I have explained time and again on these comment threads, free expression is an incident of personhood which applies to aliens present in the United States.

[damikesc]

The visa protesters --- calling them human insults humanity.

[Frank Drackman]

Ham-ass apologist, see, the difference is, there hasn't been a Stasi in over 30 years, Ham-ass is your Uber driver to the Airport. (Why is it always "Your Driver will be Ishmael/Moe-hammad/Jamall/Faisal, and not "Brett/Benny/Michael/Paul"

Frank

[Don Nico]

Is that all you have to say. You're slipping into schoolyard arguments

[Sarcastr0]

I like freedom of speech.

Seems you don't. At least when Israel is involved.

And you will lie about people and make spurious accusations to defend your hatred of liberty.

You've been revealed as a low and shitty person.

[Don Nico]

" to defend your hatred of liberty"
There you go again; the pot calling the kettle black. Your propensity to distort what other say and then rail against it has no bounds.

[Josh R]

It does seem you don't like freedom of speech which is an important aspect of liberty.

[Commenter_XY]

I like harboring Judeocidal terror sympathizers even less.

[Josh R]

Again, I want no complaints out of you when a future administration stops harboring messianic Jewish terrorists (supporters of Israeli settlers). Right?

[Don Nico]

Sure Josh, we have your number. It is never the fault of Judeocidal Palestinians; it is always the fault of Jewish settlers.

[Josh R]

That thing you see in the air is my point sailing right over your head.

I am not taking a position on whose fault anything is. I am saying that if Trump can deport any alien he thinks supports Judeocidal Palestinians, then any other president can deport any alien they think supports Jewish settler terrorists.

The point being is the government gets to decide whose fault it is and can deport anyone for their speech in support of that side. And, that's bad.

[damikesc]

They are free to do so, yes.

They can then answer as to why they did it.

Trump has quite explicitly said why HE is doing it. People are on his side over it.

Try pointing to an example of pro-Israel protesters blocking campuses, assaulting people, etc.

[Commenter_XY]

If they are foreign aliens, Josh R, then they are fair game.

Foreign aliens, while here, should keep their mouth firmly shut about matters of controversy in this country. Their input is irrelevant, and shows bad manners. Buy some popcorn. Shut up, and learn.

Now....In your example, go ahead, support deporting the supporters of Israelis living in Israel. Call your Congressman with that brilliant idea. See how far that gets you. And by all means, absolutely persuade your blue state congressman to support deporting Jews who stand behind their country fighting an existential war on seven fronts.

Really, you have a winner there. Make that case to the American people. Would you like me to help, lol?

[Josh R]

Small point: I said deporting the supporters of settlers who live outside of Israel (the West Bank is not Israel), especially those who have committed acts of terrorism. That's a case that might get majority support.

Large point: you insist you are OK with letting the democratic process handle government overreach in deportations, but not in other areas. That can't be because the democratic process is better at not overreaching in deportations than other areas. It can only be because deportations are not a big deal.

So again, no complaints from you when the democratic process overreaches (as it easily could) by deporting the supporters of Israeli settler terrorists.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...There is Judea and Samaria, and that is Israel. The rules changed as you will see in the coming months (and years). First Gaza City, then Ramallah.

Go ahead, call your blue state congressman and demand he run on persecuting the Jews in their own homeland. Good luck with that.

[Josh R]

Again, the small point: plenty of Jewish Israelis think the West Bank is not part of Israel and saying so does not persecute Jews.

But you keep missing the larger point. Please address it this time, noting it has nothing to do with the specific case of Israel and Hamas. Once again:

1) You support freedom of speech for citizens because the majority cannot be trusted to determine what is acceptable speech. Is that an accurate statement of your opinion?

2) Assuming it is, it must also be the case the majority cannot be trusted for aliens either. Sometimes, the majority will get it wrong. Therefore, you do not support freedom of speech for aliens because their speech is not as important as a citizen's speech. Am I still correct in summarizing your position?

3) And therefore, you must accept the times the majority gets it wrong and alien speech is silenced you think should not have been silenced.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R, the Simchat Torah pogrom changed the rules forever. Poll after poll after poll in Israel for the last 15 months are crystal clear. Any thought of two-state (adjacent to Israel) is dead. It won't happen. Judea and Samaria are Israel. That will be made more formal in the coming months and years.

1) Freedom of speech is a P&I of citizenship, enshrined in 1A. Even at that, there are limits. It has nothing to do with what the majority believes, or whether I trust them or not. It is just a legal question. Notably, SCOTUS has delineated some limits on speech.

2) No, b/c the foreign alien does not have the same P&I of citizens. That is a fact. How so? An alien can be deported, and American citizens cannot. That aside, there is speech (advocacy for Judeocidal terror groups being one) where an American can do that, and the alien cannot, under the law (remember the forms they filled out?). Has nothing to do with what the majority thinks. Again, that is just a legal question on statutory law (INA).

3) In theory, the majority can get it wrong. That is not the case here. These foreign alien vandals of America are seen in surveillance footage loudly and proudly proclaiming their support for hamas. I am quite sure the majority of Americans don't like that. So what. The question, again, is a legal one (INA).

Will there be at least one deported foreign alien whose verbal contribution to the public square was wrongly silenced? Probably yes; I readily concede that. Does that keep me up at night? No, it does not. There is no 'right to stay'. If a mistake was made, go to the American consular office in your home country and reapply for entry. That is the process.

Foreign aliens here in America would do well to stay far away from matters of political controversy. Keep your thoughts and opinions to yourselves. Otherwise, buy luggage because you may have cause to use it, involuntarily.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

First, they (illegally) came for the foreign aliens...

[Josh R]

Will there be at least one deported foreign alien whose verbal contribution to the public square was wrongly silenced? [...] If a mistake was made, go to the American consular office in your home country and reapply for entry. That is the process.

According to your argument, there can't be a mistake because the law permits deportation of aliens for their speech. There is no process to rectify the non-existent "mistake."

For the umpteenth time, that applies to speech you hate and speech you like. Whatever government wants, it gets. That may be fine with you, but it is not with me.

[not guilty]

"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people." United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).

What with having spent a career representing accused or convicted murderers (including one assassin), serial rapists and pornography dealers, I must agree. Affording the protection of due process even to those whom we hate matters immeasurably.

[Commenter_XY]

You make a very good point, NG, and I cannot deny that = Affording the protection of due process even to those whom we hate matters immeasurably

[Noscitur a sociis]

Then why do you seem so giddy to see it denied?

[Commenter_XY]

See Nas, I disagree strongly with NG on the question of P&I of citizens vs foreign aliens and freedom of speech. And given we are talking about Judeocidal terror supporters, I am grouchy about it.

For American citizens, the right to loudly and proudly protest for whatever cause you like is sacrosanct. For citizens. American citizens can and must be free to speak our minds. I am perfectly fine with the Neo-Nazi screaming for my death (and all Jews) in Bryant Park. People died so that pathetic neo-Nazi POS can scream his lungs out.

Foreign aliens would do well to keep their mouths shut and their ears open; they will learn something useful for their time here.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Certainly, people who are entirely comfortable acting illegally against non-citizens can be expected to scrupulously respect citizens' rights.

Can't they?

[David Nieporent]

See Nas, I disagree strongly with NG on the question of P&I of citizens vs foreign aliens and freedom of speech. And given we are talking about Judeocidal terror supporters, I am grouchy about it.

No, you disagree with the courts, not with NG.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am entirely comfortable with acting against illegal aliens in general, and legal aliens who prove to be a bad fit for the country.

I'm not at all comfortable with doing so in an illegal manner, precisely because this opens the door to acting against citizens.

What I think should happen, though, is not lower level judges issuing nation-wide restraining orders and injunctions. I think this should be kicked up to the Supreme court as fast as humanly possible, to get a final resolution.

I am frankly disgusted with how little urgency the Roberts court tends to show about resolving matters.

[Sarcastr0]

"prove to be a bad fit."

Glad Brett trusts the government so much this vague standard is good enough for him!

I am frankly disgusted with how little urgency the Roberts court tends to show about resolving matters.
Not a word during the Biden administration when the same thing was pulled by very specific and chosen judges.

I wonder if Brett ever notices how convenient his opinions invariably tend to be.

[FWIW I wouldn't mind some clarity and boundaries about the TROs, but it seems ridiculous given recent lawless efforts with national scope to take it off the table.]

[Bwaaah]

He said prove to be a bad fit, doing so in a legal manner. He even acknowledges jurisdiction of the courts while criticizing their stultifying pace. Your twisted mis-statement of his position is non-responsive to his argument.

If that's not an adequate standard for you, then what is?

[Riva]

President Trump is not doing it right. If he followed the example of the Biden regime, he’d be arresting Democrat politicians.

[Frank Drackman]

Oooooooooh!! That's a Bing-O!!!!!!!!!!!!
is that how you say it? "That's a Bing-O"???

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Full circle. There's something almost spiritual about the victims becoming the oppressors.

Sadly, I'm not spiritual.

[hobie]

Since they are engaged in nonviolent Legitimate Political Discourse, they should just shoot them on the spot like our dear, tiny, microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie makes a good point, and doesn't even realize it, like when he craps his pants. Mah-mood Khal-kill gets the ACLU, DemoKKKrat Party, Academia, most of the Federal Judiciary supporting him, Ashli got a bullet in the head (imagine if her name was "Ashante" Babbit and she was shot by a White cop trying to get into an ULTA)

[TaioF920]

Speaking of which, why hasn't Trump prosecuted that low IQ cop who killed her? It's time.

[Brett Bellmore]

He probably thinks the same thing I do: That it was effectively suicide by cop. Any normal person would have expected to have been shot in her place.

[TaioF920]

Ehh, I think she got wrapped up in the fracas. I don't think she intended to die.

[Estragon]

I’d be really careful saying stuff like that if I were you, Brett:

“Ashli Babbitt was a really good person who was a big MAGA fan, Trump fan. And she was innocently standing there, they even say trying to sort of hold back the crowd […] And a man did something to her that was unthinkable when he shot her.”

[Commenter_XY]

I agree with Brett in this aspect = Any normal person would have expected to have been shot in her place.

[Brett Bellmore]

She wasn't innocently standing there, she was climbing through a broken window with a cop on the other side holding a gun and telling her to stop.

I'm willing to believe she was caught up in the moment enough to not rationally evaluate the likely consequences of what she was doing, but the fact remains: In her place I would have expected to have been shot.

[damikesc]

"She wasn't innocently standing there, she was climbing through a broken window with a cop on the other side holding a gun and telling her to stop."

I've seen the video and heard no orders to stop.

And I am not going to assume a cop's word is sacrosanct.

[Estragon]

So in your estimation her estate should not be eligible for the proposed J6 cash compensation fund?

[Commenter_XY]

Nope.

Sadly for her, Lt Byrd panicked in the heat of the moment and fired. It is unfortunate, but it happens. Cops make honest mistakes. It doesn't matter if he was generally a shitty cop or not. Seems like qualified immunity (sigh) applies here.

OTOH, if the Capitol Police knew Byrd was incompetent, and kept Byrd there anyway, and that can be documented, then a different legal case can be made by the estate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Byrd should be prosecuted, but not for this.

He damn near killed three police officers!!!!!

They were in his field of fire -- but for blind, stupid luck, he hit her and not one of them.

Now prosecuting him for that -- attempted murder or even reckless conduct with a firearm -- is a legitimate prosecution that avoids the issue of "she deserved it" because those officers definitely didn't.

[Magister]

From the video, the angle of fire, from close to and the left of the door was upward and could not have hit anyone else. It seems to me that Dr. Ed 2 has made this claim before.

[David Nieporent]

What elements of the crime of "attempted murder" of the other police officers do you think Byrd satisfied?

[myself]

It arguably wasn't an accident.

If I recall there were legislators behind the door and there wasn't a lot of space to quickly move them further. If Babbitt breaches the door, the rest of the crowd follows. At that point you either gun down a bunch of them or you risk having the legislators lynched.

The cops were left with a bunch of really crappy options.

[Bob from Ohio]

She had no visible weapon*, cops just can't shot a person because other people may be a threat. No other cop shot anyone, just this dude shooting a woman.

*a small knife was found in a pocket on her corpse so some people here thinks she was armed

[myself]

The standard is imminent danger. If she leads a mod through the barricaded doors lots of folks start dying.

Cops very, very rarely get charged when someone charges them guns drawn. I don't see what Babbitt should be the exception.

[hobie]

Stand your ground, Bob, amirite? Your computer chip implant may have disengaged your hypocrisy detection, but the rest of us notice and can remind you

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I consider it progress that you now grudgingly, qualifiedly, acknowledge that Babbitt was actually carrying a weapon when she jumped through the broken window to her imminent death. Baby steps!

[David Nieporent]

cops just can't shot a person because other people may be a threat.

No, but they can shoot a person because that person is a threat. (I don't recall Bob arguing that the shooting of Michael Brown was wrong because Brown wasn't armed.) And the fact that the person is at the spear tip of an attacking mob makes that person — not just the other people — a threat.

[TaioF920]

Did you listen to Byrd speak? I spoke more coherently at age 8 than he does as an adult. Although that shouldn't be a surprise when you consider his genetic makeup.

[damikesc]

They were quite aware he was a terrible cop. He had multiple issues with his professional work.

[Brett Bellmore]

Agreed, nope. She played stupid games and got a stupid prize.

A lot, maybe most, of the J-6ers didn't think they were breaking the law. I think there's no case that Babbit was among them. She absolutely had to know she was acting criminally.

This isn't to say Byrd should have shot her. He should get a black mark on his record for that. But it was the sort of thing she should have expected to happen doing something like that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Friendly fire isn't.

Or do you think that police officers should expect to be shot by one of their fellow officers? Most of the ones I know consider that the last thing they would ever do....

[David Nieporent]

No police offiers were shot by one of their fellow officers.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "A lot, maybe most, of the J-6ers didn't think they were breaking the law"

1. Does this include the people who stormed the Capitol?

2. How can you claim that?

[bernard11]

Bret thinks they were just admiring the artwork in the Capitol.

[Brett Bellmore]

Brett thinks that at least some of the people who entered the Capitol that day were acquitted on the basis that they legitimately thought it was legal for them to enter, and they did nothing wrong while inside.

[Magister]

Brett has retreated from "a lot, maybe most" to "at least some".

[Estragon]

I’m actually genuinely curious if there’s more than one. Brett?

Of course, many others tried this defense.

This individual also referred to J6 as a “magical” day… I suppose that’s one way to put it

[damikesc]

I love that every person who was barricading the library at Columbia was an innocent angel while anybody near the Capitol on 1/6 is a criminal.

seems plausible.

[Nelson]

“ A lot, maybe most, of the J-6ers didn't think they were breaking the law”

Then they were too stupid for words. Stepping over tear gas canisters, past breached barriers, and through smashed doors would give anyone with half a brain the clue that they were doing something wrong.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I think the first expended gas canister might have been a clue, but by the time they got to the busted windows and broken down doors, anyone with a brain would be turning around and walking away.

Going into the building after all of that....stupid beyond measure.

[damikesc]

Except the Capitol is large and the doors were ALSO open on the side where no "riot" occurred. The other side --- a decent distance away --- did not have this issue and the people who entered there had no reason to assume they were not allowed in.

THOSE people, who saw open doors and cops waving them in, ALSO got arrested.

[David Nieporent]

A lot, maybe most, of the J-6ers didn't think they were breaking the law.

If I were Dr. Ed, I'd call this bullshyte. All of them damn knew with 100% certainty that they were breaking the law.

MAGA loves to tout stories about some J6er who was unjustly convicted because he didn't realize it was illegal and didn't intend any harm and just walked in — and then you read the actual facts of the case and learn about contemporaneous text messages or social media posts from the guy touting the attack and the glorious revolution he's a part of.

[damikesc]

Those student visa protesters? ALL of them knew what was in their T & C for having a visa.

ALL of them knowingly violated it.

Toss all of them.

Goose, gander --- you know.

[David Nieporent]

Those student visa protesters? ALL of them knew what was in their T & C for having a visa.

ALL of them knowingly violated it.

There is no "T&C for having a student visa" that says "Don't write an op/ed in the school paper."

[David Nieporent]

And a man did something to her that was unthinkable when he shot her

When the looting starts, the shooting starts.

[hobie]

Speaking of that, why hasn't Trump started the investigation as to who stole the 2020 election? It's all he's railed about for five years. I for one absolutely welcome this investigation

[damikesc]

Didn't get one of the "pardons" "signed" by "Biden"?

[Satchmo_Lives]

I love how you guys reduce their actions to "just peaceful protests."

[damikesc]

Mostly peaceful protests has always been my term for it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rubio Rules!!!

[Kazinski]

If those students were parading around in hoods, burning crosses instead of American and Israeli flags, and according Black students instead of Jewish students, then the condemnation and cries to deport them would be almost universal.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And that would change the legal analysis how?

[David Nieporent]

Hypothetical hypocrisy, as always, is the worst form of hypocrisy.

[hobie]

Russia's intentions for Ukraine and the dissolution of NATO are clear.

What may be less appreciated are its shipping ambitions. With its fleet of nuclear icebreakers it wants to own the opening waters of the arctic Northern Sea Route. Russia has invested heavily in this; for if it can control the route it would be the dominant player in global shipping.

The problem is that Canada's and Greenland's territorial claims mean they control the majority of the navigable waters.

Also, just this year, Panama finally started to sanction the vessels of the Russian shadow fleet of tankers barring them access to the canal.

You vile traitorous MAGA see the connection now?

[Kazinski]

I hope they aren't planning to start shipping oul via the Arctic in the next few weeks:

https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today

Even during the annual September low ice mark there is still a lot of ice, and the northern coast of Greenland never became ice free this year.
https://nsidc.org/sites/default/files/images/Data/202409_sit_minimum.png

[Commenter_XY]

Re: Greenland. Here I thought the VP and his wife were there for the skiing. Today is mostly cloudy, high of 17F. Perfect skiing weather. 😉

Kaz, a glaring US capability problem is the lack of military icebreakers, there are something like 2 of them (really small number). I could reasonably foresee the US trying to negotiate immediate submarine basing rights in Greenland. I know if there were a conflict with RUS or CHN, I would want subs near the polar cap; it is better position to fire missiles at both (if needed) and take out military installations super quick.

[Kazinski]

I don't think that's an issue, the subs already stay out months at a time and can be reapplied by c17 cargo drops.

[Sarcastr0]

Good thing we've cut all that climate research nonsense.

[Frank Drackman]

It is! and they say we Ass-Burgers don't recognize sarcasm

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

I see the connection. MAGA got Panama to sanction the vessels of the Russian shadow fleet.

Nice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump's diplomacy isn't subtle on the surface, but runs deep.

[Frank Drackman]

You don't trust the Greenlandic Navy?

[Riva]

Well at least you TDS demented lunatics are starting to appreciate the strategic importance of Greenland, if nothing else.

[Frank Drackman]

Iceland is much more valuable strategically (HT A. Mahan) which is why we used to have a Naval Air Station with P-3's and an Air Farce Squadron of F-15s, and those crazy Vikings have been an Independant nation since WW2 when the Dane's went Full Nazi. Iceland played a big role in Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" (his books are actually pretty good except every Marine Corpse Officer is portrayed as a Renaissance Man "Brett Manly, Major, USMC, was Captain of the Debate team at Yale, while also participating in Football, Rugby, Crew, and Track, after completing The Basic School he underwent a year of Mongolian Language training at the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio, before serving as Company Commander of Marine Security Forces Ulaanbaatar....)
Friend of mine did a 1 year unaccompanied tour in Keflavik, said the women were amazing, somehow his wife didn't share his opinion.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie,

Russia has icebreakers for the same reason that the US has aircraft capable of dropping fire retardant -- Russia does have a domestic use for icebreakers for their own ports, independent of this.

I am surprised that they are nuclear -- subs would still be Diesel if it weren't for the oxygen and I can't see it being cost-effective to use nuclear power on an icebreaker. Unless they want to establish the technology.

Nuclear power in the merchant marine -- nuclear powered oil tankers and freighters like the one that took out the Key Bridge in Baltimore -- that at a reasonable price would be incredibly effective because ships that size are very thirsty and fuel is a major expense.

The Russians have long had a very sketchy safety record with nuclear subs, and they may be "perfecting" the technology with icebreakers that might (I emphasize "might") be quite unsafe to be near. It's not the way I would do it, but trial & error could lead to a design and practice that doesn't nuke your crew in the process.

BUT which foreign powers would let these Russian nuke ships into their ports? And go through their territorial waters?

[hobie]

"BUT which foreign powers would let these Russian nuke ships into their ports? And go through their territorial waters?"

None would. Their only hope is to have a Russian asset as president who can force them to cede access to their shipping lanes

[Kazinski]

moved.

[Commenter_XY]

https://nypost.com/2025/03/27/us-news/trump-more-popular-than-ever-percentage-of-americans-who-think-country-is-on-the-right-track-through-the-roof-says-cnn-analyst/

Trump more popular than ever – percentage of Americans who think country is on the right track ‘through the roof,’ says CNN analyst

What explains this phenomenon (country on the right track)? Judging by some VC Conspirators (you know who you are) comments, we live in a dystopian world, fraught with uncertainty of summary deportation, Unable to speak freely, with rampant racism, sexism, genderism (and a bunch of other -isms I never heard of, growing up), and the country is spiraling downward out of control. Oh, and we can't eat eggs b/c of the astoundingly high cost, there is that, too.

Is there something to 'the wisdom of the crowd'?
Or are the American people are a bunch of illiterate rubes who don't know what is good for them and must be managed by their 'betters' (the betters absolutely know who they are, just ask them on BlueSky, heh)?

This measure is a psychological measure, how people feel, what they perceive - the gestalt. What do you think explains this result?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you've got a President who is actually acting on the 80% side of multiple "80-20" issues. I think that's mostly what it's about.

80/20 Issues: How Republicans Win While Democrats Double Down on Losing Battles

You can argue with his means, often I would, but that's what it comes down to: On a lot of issues where the public is mostly on one side, voters are being treated to the novel experience of a President who's actually on the SAME side of the issue as them, and visibly trying to do something about it.

And in recent history it IS a novel experience for most people. Voters had gotten used to a choice between somebody who was openly on the 20% side, or somebody who claimed to be on the 80% side, but wouldn't actually DO anything.

[TaioF920]

I'd argue that while his means suck, there is no alternative, because the left's tentacles are too entrenched around America's traditional institutions.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's mostly what's keeping me less upset about his means than I normally would be.

America has been driving towards a cliff for decades now, with the Democrats putting the pedal to the metal, and the Republicans merely easing back on the accelerator a little, never even applying the brakes. Not just on one issue, on multiple fronts.

And now the cliff is looming, and it's too late to just turn off the ignition and coast to a stop, it's panic stop time, and maybe even too late for that. Maybe the best we can do is just try to survive the crash.

And Trump is fighting dirty while wrestling for control of the car, but at least he's trying to avert our national suicide.

I don't think people really paid enough attention to Trump and Musk's meeting with Javier Milei a few months ago. They're trying desperately to do the same thing here that Milei is pulling off in Argentina.

[TaioF920]

Yes, agreed. To follow on your analogy, the "norms" would have meant the passenger quietly and nicely asking the driver if he can take the wheel, all while the driver grinned and hit the gas even harder.

"Norms" and "civility" don't work in a situation like this. Trump's actions are awful and ugly, but I don't see much alternative.

[bernard11]

You are a certifiable lunatic.

And if the "cliff " you're raving about is debt, well, the Republicans have done zip to avoid it, and in fact even now they, including Trump, want to speed up.

Don't imagine that Trump gives two shits about it.

[Sarcastr0]

He's at this point an open liar on his crisis thing. It's pure rationalization for authoritarianism and lawlessness.

He ONLY supports Trump-type nonsense cuts to reduce the debt. No taxes, no better IRS enforcement of existing laws, and he wishes Operation Warp Speed were kept on, with the suspending cost controls in service of speed.

It may convince himself, but at this point he's convincing no one else of his good faith on this.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And Trump is fighting dirty while wrestling for control of the car, but at least he's trying to avert our national suicide.

Trump has Truthed “BALANCED BUDGET” a few times, but his actual proposals call for increasing the deficit.

They're trying desperately to do the same thing here that Milei is pulling off in Argentina.

No, they’re half-heartedly trying to make it look like they’re doing something along those lines. Which appear to be working, at least on the lost gullible rubes out there.

[jb]

I suspect right-leaning folk are very happy right now because they see Trump as doing a bunch of stuff that makes them happy and right now most of the downside is pretty theoretical. And for whatever reason, a big part of the right-voting populace seems to find joy in making other people unhappy so the numbers are also probably pretty polarized.

Once Trump has actually managed to crash the economy and reignite inflation (and the effects of all the cuts to government programs get felt a bit more) the numbers are likely to turn around pretty quickly.

[not guilty]

Much of Donald Trump's appeal is that his supporters believe that he hates the same people that they hate.

Which I suppose is true. But Trump's hatred operates on a far broader scale. He hates anyone who does not kiss up to him.

[Riva]

Odd, but i’m disinclined to trust your opinion since you’re an inveterate ant-semite. Again I note that it is strange how all the repulsive anti-semites seem to hate President Trump. He must be doing something right.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Well, you've got a President who is actually acting on the 80% side of multiple "80-20" issues"

Addressing your nonsense & XY's above:

1. Your 80-20 stuff is dependent on milquetoast questions with only one possible answer and the Democrats assigned a position they've never remotely held. It also ignores all the real issue-oriented poling on stuff like handling the economy, foreign policy, and government cuts. Those polls show Trump underwater on most issues.

2. I saw XY's link headline yesterday and read the story, wondering if the country had a mass-lobotomy while I wasn't looking. But it turns out Trump's "soaring popularity" is only in relationship to himself: He's outperforming 2017 Trump by a few percentage points. By the standards of all other presidents in the modern era, he's still more unpopular than anyone else at this point in his presidency.

Leave it to the Cult to produce such a headline for such a fact. Leave to the Cult's dupes & chumps to spew rapturous joy over such a black-is-white factoid.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-update-economy-2051976

[Brett Bellmore]

"Your 80-20 stuff is dependent on milquetoast questions with only one possible answer and the Democrats assigned a position they've never remotely held."

Keep thinking that, you'll stay on that 20% side longer.

"Those polls show Trump underwater on most issues. "

Yeah, he's underwater on the issues he's underwater on, can't argue that. And if it all goes sour, obviously his poll numbers will drop.

"By the standards of all other presidents in the modern era, he's still more unpopular than anyone else at this point in his presidency."

And yet, he got elected twice, and nearly won in 2020. (Would have won, if Covid lockdowns hadn't tanked the economy.) How bad of candidates and/or campaigns must you be running for that to have happened?

I don't think Democrats have quite understood that point yet: The worse you consider Trump to be, the worse your own candidates and positions must be, in order for him to have had this level of success!

I don't like Trump. (I do find him entertaining, which is a very different thing from liking him.) I have never voted for him in a primary election. Given my choice, I'd have gone with Rand Paul.

But I'm not going to get my choice, now, am I? I've never voted for a successful candidate for the Republican nomination in my life.

But I doubt I'll ever be voting for a Democrat for President. You keep puking up ever worse nominees. Nominees so bad, they make the likes of Donald Trump look good.

That's not easy to do, but you're doing it with remarkable regularity.

[Bwaaah]

"You keep puking up ever worse nominees. Nominees so bad, they make the likes of Donald Trump look good."

They don't make him look good. They just make him look better, even to moderate people. And, yeah, that's an incredible feat. And the staunch left can't even see it.

Their complete and serious conclusion: That's 70+ (?) million of the dumbest people in the world.

[David Nieporent]

And yet, he got elected twice, and nearly won in 2020. (Would have won, if Covid lockdowns hadn't tanked the economy.) How bad of candidates and/or campaigns must you be running for that to have happened?

I like how losing badly in 2016 is called "winning," while losing even worse in 2020 is called "nearly won," while barely winning in 2024 is not described as "nearly lost."

(Yes, yes, I know he won the Electoral College in 2016. But we are now discussing overall popularity, not the intricacies of an accounting system.)

[jb]

In fairness to the pro-Trump crowd, the "is the country on the right track?" number is historically high at the moment.

[Commenter_XY]

That was the OP (right track). Why is that the case? Why do a record number of people feel that the country is on the right track?

[Brett Bellmore]

I gave my theory above: Trump picked the 80 side of a series of 80-20 issues, and very visibly tried to deliver on them. Often through questionable means, but he can be seen trying.

The novelty of this is what caused the public to think we were on the right track.

[jb]

Yes, I know it was. Along with the favorability numbers that are only good relative to Trump's usual even lower numbers.

And I already explained why I thought this was the case above, as well as why I don't expect it to last.

[John F. Carr]

If we didn't have a two party system we'd have 20% support for the party that wants to ban gas, 20% support for the party that wants gas ovens to put the first party in, and a government formed by the parties in the middle 60%.

[bernard11]

Wow. Is that article a piece of shit.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>Or are the American people are a bunch of illiterate rubes who don't know what is good for them

Well this is what the standard Liberal thinks, and also whey they are such petty authoritarians. They believe that if you don't think like they do, you don't deserve any agency.

You see it all the time in their tropes like "They're voting against their own best interests".

As if we can't decide for ourselves what's in our best interest, only some dipshit bluehair can. That's also why they continue to infantilize minorities. They think they're too stupid to decide things for themselves or even to figure out how to get an ID.

[TaioF920]

They are never able to comprehend that working class conservatives don't see it as their best interest to be handed free shit and turned into wards of the state.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

They can't get over us rejecting their "utopia".

[TaioF920]

Their utopia is living in crowded, dense cities in apartments, all while celebrating every sexual deviant under the sun. They think walking into a coffee shop in an urban environment and seeing a 22 year old dude at a table with his 58 year old boyfriend is normal and healthy.

[Frank Drackman]

It's the modern version of "How did Nixon/Reagan/W win? Nobody I know voted for them!"

[Frank Drackman]

Like how you don't have to be the worlds fastest runner to get away from the Bear, just faster than the other guy, "47" only had to be more popular than Cums-a-lot, who umm, what did she say about Sex Change Surgery for Prisoners???
“Every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access,”
and she said that before her total joke of a run in 2020

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you.

That was the 'Daisy' commercial of 2024.

[Michael P]

I see the leftist commenters here are leaning heavily into "Governor Hot Wheels" type language in their efforts to show they are anti-civilization and pro-barbarity. Rep. Crockett must be proud of them.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Multi-millionaire Rep. Crockett whom taxpayers subsidize a $1000/mo luxury car for her to pimp around her tiny district in.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then when people talk about amending the Voting Rights Act, everyone freaks.

The majority-minority set-aside districts is why we (a) have people like her, and (b) why the Dems can't produce national leaders anymore. If that was a competitive district where the GOP actually had a chance of winning, someone like Crockett would be defeated in the primary because the party would rather have a Susan Collins than lose the seat.

And someone with those skills could then proceed upward to Senator or Governor or whatever.

For a good explanation of this, see Abby Thernstrom's _Voting Rights and Wrongs._

[David Nieporent]

We already covered this lie. Crockett is not a multi-millionaire. Again, I just don't get what the point of this sort of trolling is. It's not even good; good trolling requires something outrageous to rile people up, not a bland milquetoast lie that nobody cares about.

[Commenter_XY]

I rather like Rep Jasmine Crockett, Michael P. She is feisty.

[Frank Drackman]

and a joke, does she have to say "mmm hmm!" after every statement??
best was the other day, when the National Pubic Radio people were testifying, and she dropped the "BS" (See EV? trying to keep it clean)
word, except she didn't say "BS" she said the one that rhymes with Bull Pit, you know just to get that soundbite on PMS-NBC and Pubic Broadcasting,
and MTG just ignored her, didn't even give her the courtesy of warning her that she'd violated the rules of the House, just like Doc Holliday
"Oh, Jasmine, I apologize, I forgot you were there"

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

No Frank, I want Rep Crocket to run for President in 2028. I'll gladly donate to Rep Crockett's presidential primary campaign.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that sucks.

But you support Trump, so you don't have much standing to get mad.

[Michael P]

Who's going to stand up against deporting freshmen majoring in IT at suburban Virginia schools based on social media messages?

https://www.cnn.com/us/gmu-student-plot-israel-consulate-attack/index.html

Related to the main story:

Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported George Mason banned two sisters who are the current and past presidents of the university’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine from campus for four years, after authorities searched their family home and found “relatives’ guns, ammunition and insignia calling for death to Jews,” though it is not clear whether the firearms were tied to the sisters’ ban.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think that being involved in SJP is itself enough to be booted out of the country.

For all the hysteria that is being raised about Russia, no one ever mentions the Soviet subversion of American Higher Education, which is reflected by the very existence of SJP.

[David Nieporent]

Since SJP was founded after the Soviet Union dissolved, that seems like a neat trick.

[Commenter_XY]

Clearly, there is something in the water at GMU, Michael P. We should call the DOJ EPA and have the water tested. /sarc

That Egyptian foreign national will be deported.

As for the sister hamas wannabe brides in waiting, we'll see. We do have 2A rights in this country. Perfectly legal to own a gun. The insignia thing would absolutely make me take a hard look at their social media, travel and finances. Are they citizens?

Personally, I cannot make the case that an American citizen wearing insignia calling for Judeocide can be punished; it is free speech. They're no different than the Neo-Nazis in that aspect, to me. Shout all you want in the public square. At least we know who you are.

If they are not American citizens, I'd tell them to be proactive and buy some luggage. CBP-One helps you self-deport. You clearly lied on your immigration forms, and this party is over. You're going home.

[not guilty]

Personally, I cannot make the case that an American citizen wearing insignia calling for Judeocide can be punished; it is free speech. They're no different than the Neo-Nazis in that aspect, to me. Shout all you want in the public square. At least we know who you are.

If they are not American citizens, I'd tell them to be proactive and buy some luggage. CBP-One helps you self-deport. You clearly lied on your immigration forms, and this party is over. You're going home.

XY, it has been explained to you time and again that First Amendment rights of free expression are not an incident of citizenship, but instead are available to persons within our borders. “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945).

Back in the day, I learned that when someone who is honestly mistaken is repeatedly shown that he is in error, he ceases to be mistaken -- or in the alternative, ceases to be honest.

[Brett Bellmore]

And it has been explained to YOU time and again that being present in the US is in no way a right of anybody but citizens, it's a privilege subject to revocation, and that revocation isn't punishment, it's merely a decision that extending the privilege has ceased to be a good idea.

[Sarcastr0]

Stay on topic.

You are arguing these nonhumans don't get speech rights.

it's merely a decision
LISTEN TO YOURSELF

[Krayt]

Pretty much this. The Constitution says Congress shall make no law...

It doesn't say only no laws against citizens.

Also, you possess rights by fact of your beating heart. They are not granted to you, or a gift to you. They exist prior to the formation of a government.

Even illegal aliens have those same rights as you do, for the same reason.

As for saying rotten things, again, the value in the First Amendment is not that there's value in every frequency squeaked out of some drooler's mouth. It's in denying those in power one of their greatest golf clubs in the tyrant's bag of tools.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is no law being made -- all Congress is doing is evaluating the available evidence -- including speech -- to determine if one is likely to be a desired addition to the country.

[Magister]

Congress doesn't act (outside its own rules) except by passing laws. It would seem that, f the executive branch is using a law to deny free speech to somebody, then it's either not faithfully executing the law or the law denied free speech, both of which are forbidden by the Constitution.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm arguing these humans don't get "stay in the US" rights, that they can be rightfully deported for acts that are not remotely criminal, that just reason to believe their continued presence in the US isn't a great idea is entirely sufficient, because their continued presence in the US is a revocable privilege.

I've said it before: Most of the people in the world aren't in the US, aren't US citizens. That doesn't make them non-human, but it does make them people who aren't entitled to be here, and only get to be here so long as we think it's in OUR interest that they be here.

[Sarcastr0]

You're arguing for state action against people based on their speech.

But didn't mention speech.

Which is cowardly.

You are coming at freedom of speech. Own that or back off.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm arguing for state action against non-citizens based on their speech. Where the 'state action' is merely revocation of a privilege the non-citizens are in no way entitled to.

You do realize that we make decisions on who can get visas to come here based on speech, right?

[Sarcastr0]

It's been explained quite a few times the issues with your legality argument, including deploying spurious government findings of invasion or terrorism.

But what I'm more interested in is the bare morality. These are humans. You're asking your government to come at their speech.

That's a profoundly anti-freedom thing to advocate for.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, the mentally ill have free speech rights too, but we lock them up for conversing with nonexistent people. Isn't that speech?

[David Nieporent]

As evidenced by the fact that you still post here, we do not in fact lock people up just for conversing with nonexistent people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro was OK with the government punishing people for saying that there are two genders, now all of a sudden he's pro free speech? Weird.

[Josh R]

I want to hear no complaints from you when a Democratic president kicks out all aliens who have expressed support for Trump.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, we'll just wait four years until we can do the same thing to all the aliens who expressed support for the Dems.

Hopefully, there might be someone in the Democrat President's Admin bright enough to realize this and not kick out the Trump supporters for this very reason...

[Brett Bellmore]

You figure that's interchangeable with expressing support for Hamas?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, a bit ago: "they can be rightfully deported for acts that are not remotely criminal, that just reason to believe their continued presence in the US isn't a great idea is entirely sufficient, because their continued presence in the US is a revocable privilege."

Explain how that wouldn't apply to MAGA. "Reason to believe," I think you said. Lotsa room there!!

This is why we think that's bad, Brett. You don't get to buy the ticket and then not take the ride.

[Josh R]

It's not whether I think they are interchangeable. It's whether a Democratic president does.

As with others Brett, you are missing the point. We shouldn't deport aliens for their speech because we don't trust the government to decide which speech justifies deportation.

[Commenter_XY]

My answer to Josh R: Go ahead. Deport them.

In fact, try running on that platform in 2026 or 2028. I want your vote so I can deport foreign alien Trump supporters. Sounds like a yuuuuuuge winner to me!

Please, please, please! Run on that platform. Do you think you could persuade some blue state senators up for re-election in 2026 to run on that platform? Can I donate, lol?

[David Nieporent]

You figure that's interchangeable with expressing support for Hamas?

Not really; Hamas doesn't want to destroy the United States.

[Kazinski]

I've been told that political activity by foreigners in the US is wrong, and needs to be addressed.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-election-security-fbi-cisa-foreign-interference-98f1e17c8a6d5923db945a27f06458e7

[Sarcastr0]

Things that are different are not the same, Kaz. Even if you abstract to the point that they are.

I hope this helps, but I know it won't.

[damikesc]

They're (D)ifferent. We know.

[jb]

Free speech rights aren't very meaningful if the government can take action against you for using them.

As an analogy: it's also a privilege not a right to go to have a government job or go to a government university or receiving a government grant. But we've generally decided that the government can't retaliate against your speech by taking these sorts of benefits away from you when you engage in protected speech. Why should immigration status be different?

[Don Nico]

Why should it be the same? Let's say that you are an immigrant MS on a visa that permits you to have a job here. You tell you boss that you are interested in a job offer from another hospital. Before you actually do anything else. He writes to immigration authorities to have your visa revoked.
Is that okay in your books?

[bernard11]

Not OK in mine. Not remotely.

The boss is being an asshole, though that's not a strong enough term.

[Don Nico]

That was my comment also.
It was a real case this week. The immigrant (an MD) married his gf the next day. Hopefully the new employer asks for the work visa transfer immediately.

[Commenter_XY]

B/c you ain't a citizen.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So clear!

By the way, who decides whether someone is a citizen?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, you would like to make this a high and mighty 1A issue when your issue is with INA. Specifically, INA grants the SecState (him, and him only, the law doesn't say his designee) with revocation and deportation power for various reasons. Among them:

The alien's continued presence on US soil is inimical to the foreign policy interests of the United States. That's it. The INA grants the SecState the authority to make that determination, and he has. You don't agree. Fine.

Then there is the issue of lying on a federal form. Which they clearly did.

There is no problem with adjudicating that in the Courts. The law seems pretty clear to me; Congress explicitly delegated that authority to the SecState. Was that wise? Reasonable people can disagree on the answer to that question.

It isn't dishonesty. The problem for you is that it isn't a 1A issue.

[not guilty]

Of course it is a First Amendment issue. As I have explained before on multiple occasions, First Amendment rights of free expression are not privileges of citizenship. Due Process and Equal Protection guaranties protect persons, not just citizens.

An alien can lawfully be excluded entry into the United States because of expression of his political views. See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). Once here, however, an alien is entitled to Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. SCOTUS has expressly rejected the contention that aliens within our borders are not subject to constitutional due process and equal protection guaranties:

Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982). The Court there elaborated:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: `Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Yick Wo [v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356,] 369 [(1886).]

457 U.S. at 212 (italics supplied in Plyler).

Suppression of speech or expression based on content or subject matter violates both First Amendment and Equal Protection guaranties. As SCOTUS has repeatedly opined:

[U]nder the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. And it may not select which issues are worth discussing or debating in public facilities. There is an `equality of status in the field of ideas,' and government must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard. Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking on the basis of what they intend to say. Selective exclusions from a public forum may not be based on content alone, and may not be justified by reference to content alone.

Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 463 (1980), quoting Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972). Viewpoint discrimination accordingly violates both First Amendment and Equal Protection guaranties:

When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. . . . Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995) (citations omitted).

XY, if you continue to deny that deportation of resident aliens based on support for Hamas or the perception thereof implicates First Amendment issues, then as we say here in Middle Tennessee, you are a liar and the truth ain't in you.

[Josh R]

Once again, Eugene said, 1) 1A does not apply to entry, 2) 1A does apply to criminal and ordinary civil punishments, and 3) it is not settled law whether 1A applies to deportations.

Regardless of the law, it is odious to kick out lawfully-present people for their speech.

[not guilty]

I respectfully differ with Professor Volokh on that, at least as regards resident aliens.

It has been clear since 1886 that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranty of equal protection applies to resident aliens. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886).

It has been clear since 1954 that the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment includes an Equal Protection component. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499-500 (1954). See also United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 774 (2013) ("The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.")

It has been clear since at least 1972 that content or subject matter discrimination among speakers by the government violates both Free Speech and Equal Protection guaranties. Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 101-102 (1972).

It has been clear since at least 1973 that "if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973) (italics in original).

It has been clear since at least 1982 that even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process and equal protection of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210-212 (1982).

These long established propositions of law, read together, make it clear that First Amendment guaranties of free speech and expression apply to resident aliens within the borders of the United States.

[Josh R]

None of those cases addressed deportation. Eugene referenced cases where lower courts did not agree.

[not guilty]

The SCOTUS cases I have cited stand for propositions of law that are fully applicable to persons within the borders of this country. Personhood combined with presence here, not immigration status, is the key.

And Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945), which I have also cited on these threads and which expressly recognized that “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country”, did indeed involve deportation of a resident alien.

[Josh R]

Wixon did not decide whether the First Amendment applied to deportations. Only Murphy's concurrence did.

[not guilty]

"Wixon did not decide whether the First Amendment applied to deportations. Only Murphy's concurrence did."

Au contraire. The language I quoted appears in Justice Douglas's opinion of the Court. 326 U.S. at 148. Harry Bridges had been ordered deported based on a misconstruction of the term "affiliation" with the Communist Party as used in the statute and by reason of an unfair hearing on the question of his membership in the Communist Party. Id., at 156. The order of deportation was accordingly reversed. Id., at 157. All of that is taken from the opinion of the Court.

Justice Murphy's concurring opinion, id., at 157-166, would indeed have gone further and found the statute to be unconstitutional, but I was careful not to rely on that in my commentary.

[Josh R]

The Court ruled in favor of Bridges because his protected speech did not amount to "affiliation" as used in the statute. That conclusion does not mean it is settled law that a statute which permitted deportation based solely on his protected speech is unconstitutional. Again as Eugene noted, lower courts disagree on what happens in that case in spite of Wixon.

[not guilty]

"NG, you would like to make this a high and mighty 1A issue when your issue is with INA. Specifically, INA grants the SecState (him, and him only, the law doesn't say his designee) with revocation and deportation power for various reasons. Among them:

"The alien's continued presence on US soil is inimical to the foreign policy interests of the United States. That's it. The INA grants the SecState the authority to make that determination, and he has. You don't agree. Fine."

And if you think that a statute delegating that kind of authority to the Secretary of State to make such determinations without evidence and due process can override the First and Fifth Amendments, then Ron White said it best: "You can't fix stupid.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, what does the law (INA) actually say?

8 U.S. Code § 1227 - Deportable aliens
Sec 4Ci Foreign policy (i) In general:

An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.

So yes, Congress clearly granted SecState the authority to make that determination, NG. He made it. Was it wise to give him that authority? Reasonable people can disagree. Has nothing to do with 1A. The SecState is uniquely qualified to make that judgment, Congress recognized that, and a federal judge is not.

And then, NG, there is the matter of lying on their fed forms, curiously left unaddressed by you. They absolutely lied about their beliefs and associations on their forms. We never would have let a foreign alien into this country if they told they the consular officer they sympathize with hamas, a Judeocidal terror group who currently holds American hostages.

[Josh R]

You look foolish when you claim a statute precludes the 1A (reread Eugene's post which I linked to above).

[Commenter_XY]

We'll see Josh R. The Courts are addressing it. I think they'll find these deportations are squarely within the ambit of Article 2 power.

NG (and you) have been wrong before. I vaguely recall something about CO and candidates on ballots, in this regard. Maybe you can help me with that recall.

[Commenter_XY]

And you're still running away from lying on a federal form, Josh R. You and NG. Foreign aliens applying for visas and green cards don't get to lie on the federal forms they complete. You lie on the form, you're done.

[Josh R]

I think they'll find these deportations are squarely within the ambit of Article 2 power.

That may happen. It hasn't yet (the law is not settled). But even if your viewpoint prevails, it's still ludicrous to argue a statute trumps the First Amendment. The proper argument is the First Amendment does not apply to deportations.

I made no First Amendment arguments about ballots in Colorado.

I agree with you on lying on forms. But, that requires due process that the lies occurred. Trump is arguing he can deport aliens for their opinions without any due process.

[Commenter_XY]

I am not arguing that the statute trumps 1A. You seem to be, though.

The actions and conduct of the hamas homies and harpies absolutely negatively affected the hostage negotiations conducted by Adam Boehner, our hostage negotiator, with hamas, in attempting to free Edan Alexander, an American citizen, who has been systematically starved and tortured while held in captivity by hamas for over 500 days. The actions of these foreign aliens were broadcast around the world. Oh yeah, it had a negative impact.

Therefore, an alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable. It fits perfectly here. There is no 1A issue; rather, there is a foreign policy issue in another country that directly affects American citizens and the behavior of these foreign aliens is directly contrary to our national interest (which I assume means save American lives, like Edan Alexander).

How long do you want Edan Alexander, an American, held hostage and tortured by hamas? 500+ days is not enough? Those foreign aliens who participate in those demonstrations are encouraging and helping hamas. That simply makes hamas intransigent. And the gazans suffer*, along with Edan. Those foreign aliens can encourage and cheer on hamas all they want from their home country. Not here.

*The saddest part is the gazans there now who are suffering unbelievably will eventually be leaving, and won't ever come back. The gazans have been cynically used; a completely un-Islamic behavior by hamas. There is no future there for them in gaza, only death and misery.

[not guilty]

"I am not arguing that the statute trumps 1A."

Of course you are. Is it hard to type with pants on fire?

That even the ministerial actions of the Secretary of State are subordinate to constitutional requirements was decided back in 1803. You may have heard of the decision, styled Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

No matter how much you kvetch and whine and bitch and moan, XY, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to court with the law you have, not the law you might want or wish to have at a later time.

[David Nieporent]

I am not arguing that the statute trumps 1A.

You literally are.

You seem to be, though.

No, he's arguing that the statute (as applied) violates the 1A, and since the 1A trumps statutes. it is unenforceable as it is being applied.

The actions and conduct of the hamas homies and harpies absolutely negatively affected the hostage negotiations conducted

To quote Joe Wilson, "You lie"!

How long do you want Edan Alexander, an American, held hostage and tortured by hamas?

I don't want him held hostage at all, but I value the 1A more than I do Edan Alexander.

[Josh R]

There is no 1A issue.

Or there is. It's not settled law.

[damikesc]

You know, it might be easier to just cancel ALL visas and never issue new ones.

[not guilty]

XY, if you continue to maintain that a mere statute can override constitutional protection of individual rights, then there is no persuading you. As Jonathan Swift said, "You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

As for your facile contention about lying on federal forms, when and where did you examine such forms? How do you claim to know what was said, and by whom? If someone did in fact misrepresent himself, it should not be difficult for federal authorities to prove that on an individualized basis, now would it?

Start thinking with your brain, XY, rather than with your spleen.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I cited the law, accurately. I think the saying goes...we'll see you in court. 😉

I am perfectly content with that outcome.

[Magister]

A lot of the issue is that the Trump administration is not willing to go to court with any of these deportations.

[Commenter_XY]

Why, I believe they have asked SCOTUS to step in. So much for unwillingness.

[Magister]

That looks like they're trying to avoid giving individuals due process by getting a Supreme Court decision as bad as the presidential immunity one. Or do you think that lawyers for deported gang members and non-gang-members (as they've already conceded some were) will be able to present evidence and witnesses at the SCOTUS hearing?

[Commenter_XY]

This is a straight up legal authority question, wrt to the gangbangers and AEA. Does the POTUS have the authority to summarily deport (SCOTUS will say yes, since Congress explicitly gave him the authority), and is this predatory incursion from a foreign govt (SCOTUS will say possibly, as there is a rational basis to believe there could be foreign govt involvement, and defer to the Executive). Sort of like a Roberts 'Penaltax' decision; the people voted for the representatives who passed this legislation, so you gots to live with it.

We are talking about dirtbag gangbangers here, not Nuns from the convent down the street. Relatively easy call for SCOTUS.

[Josh R]

We are talking about alleged dirtbag gangbangers.

Even assuming SCOTUS holds that TdA is an incursion by a foreign government (which is anything but a sure thing), are we to take Trump's word that all those deported where TdA members?

[David Nieporent]

Does the POTUS have the authority to summarily deport (SCOTUS will say yes, since Congress explicitly gave him the authority),

Congress purported to do so, but Congress cannot give POTUS power that Congress does not possess.

[Jmaie]

As far as I can tell the foreign policy section merely requires that SecState believes whatever it is he believes, no reason need be given. Is this a situation where merely saying, "their presence is inimical..." allows removal but, "their presence is inimical because of their speech..." fails?

[David Nieporent]

Note that the section says that if the Secretary of State's reason for deportation is based on otherwise-protected speech, then the Secretary of State must personally certify (to Congress) that deportation is necessary for U.S. interests. That implies that the government is required to state a reason. Otherwise that provision would never be triggered.

[bernard11]

An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.

And how exactly does an op-ed create "serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States?" That's ridiculous on its face.

[Commenter_XY]

Take it up with Congress, bernard11. You and Josh R and NG. Congress wrote the law 73 years ago, and amended it several times since then. They don't have a problem entrusting the SecState with that authority.

[bernard11]

No, XY. I'm taking it up with you, because you're the one who thinks it's perfectly OK.

You're the one who, despite having things explained to you many many times continues to believe that aliens can be randomly deported for something they say, and that this has nothing to do with the 1A.

I mean, do you think an alien should be deported, on Rubio's say-so, for expressing dislike of Trump's (idiotic and destructive) tariff policies, for example?

Unbelievable.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, I looked for news reports of college campuses shut down b/c of tariff demonstrations. I also looked for a company that pays tariffs who is holding American hostages, and dead American bodies. Did not find any. You're going to have to try a little harder fella, lol.

OTOH, plenty of college campuses shut down from hamas homies and hamas harpies, loudly and proudly proclaiming their love and support for hamas, support an American - Edan Alexander - being tortured in hamas captivity, harassing Jewish students, and generally being miscreants who destroyed property while attending the hamas rally protesting. I am fine with SecState Rubio telling those foreign aliens they are going home. Only 300 so far? There must be at least 10,000. Keep looking. They'll find them.

Not to worry bernard11, there is plenty of surveillance footage and social media for AI to scan. It is only a matter of time. That is why I donate to Canary Mission, because the world should know. Canary Mission publishes who these alien assholes antisemites are, on campus. Photographs, social media, the whole shebang. Professors too. It is very informative, and organized, and most important, easily searchable. Nobody in their DB will ever work for Yours Truly in any capacity. And I tell all my HR friends the same thing, and make a point to show them the Canary Mission website, too. They're looking; I am doing my part.

Any foreign alien who joined in those pro-hamas rallies and demonstrations anywhere in this country better buy some luggage, just in case. Who knows what could happen to that foreign alien while walking down the street, on a sultry, hot summer evening.

There could be a tap on their shoulder, and a quiet voice inviting that foreign alien to step into the suburban; quietly. And then a plane ride to Gitmo El Salvador the shithole country they came from Louisiana. Or they could just get mugged. Or, they could just believe they make it home without issue. You just never know.

You know bernard11, there could be a knock on their door at their home, in the middle of the night, after that pleasant summer walk. Or not.

Any foreign alien who associates themselves with hamas, or professes affiliation with hamas (and their tactics, goals), or shares an ideology similar to hamas had better leave now. Edan sends his regards. Frankly, it would be more cost-effective if they self-deport.

CBP-Home awaits their input. It is their only option if they ever want to come back. Or maybe we won't let them back - ever.

[Josh R]

I looked for news reports of college campuses shut down b/c of tariff demonstrations.

According to you, Trump can deport aliens who oppose tariffs even though no campuses were shut down.

[Commenter_XY]

That is actually not the case, Josh R.

Cite a campus or workplace shut down by violent foreign alien tariff protesters, and we can have a conversation.

[Josh R]

Isn't your legal argument that aliens do not have freedom of speech rights and thus can be deported for whatever they say without respect to whether there have been shutdowns or whether they were violent?

[David Nieporent]

Take it up with Congress

Congress doesn't have the last word. James Madison does.

[David Nieporent]

NG, you would like to make this a high and mighty 1A issue when your issue is with INA. Specifically, INA grants the SecState (him, and him only, the law doesn't say his designee) with revocation and deportation power for various reasons. Among them:

This is literally incoherent. The fact that the INA says this is what makes it a 1A issue. If the INA didn't say it, it wouldn't be a 1A issue, because the president would simply lack any authority to act, regardless of what the Secretary of State said.

Then there is the issue of lying on a federal form. Which they clearly did.

Who is "they," and what "lie" do you think "they" told? Whose forms have you even seen? (Hint: the federal govt doesn't ask "Do you like Israel?" on any immigration form.)

[Estragon]

“Personally, I cannot make the case that an American citizen wearing [certain] insignia can be punished”

Oh come on. Sure you can. I look forward to circling back to this in a few months time.

[Commenter_XY]

No, when it comes to American citizens, different rules apply. As I wrote, scream all you want in the public square, at least we know who they are, and shun avoid them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Your reverence for the "rules" is amusing.

But it won't age well.

[Armchair]

Jewish owner's Tesla vandalized with swastika.

https://nypost.com/2025/03/15/us-news/deranged-anti-elon-musk-dad-scrawls-swastika-on-nyc-cybertruck-in-broad-daylight/

So...can we call this a hate crime now? Or terrorism?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Those terms only get applied in one direction. In the other direction they transform into "Saving Democracy" or "Being on the Right Side of History" or "Fighting Fascism".

I mean look, if that Jew is dumb enough to be driving a Tesla, we need to save democracy from him, and he's clearly a fascist whose on the wrong side of history. Once the proclamation was made, if you didn't immediately trash your Tesla on social media to virtue signal, well you're fucking facist who hates democracy and you deserve to be terrorized by pro-democracy antifascists.

[Frank Drackman]

I resemble that remark, only foreign car I own is a 91 CRX that was a hand me down from my Mom, other 2 are a 94 Camaro and my ZO6, My East German Jewish Mom, who has driven only Mercedes for the last 25 years (Mom! Hitler drove a Mercedes! doesn't matter, she loves her 580) and Mrs. Drackman, with her BMW addiction(and Prada, Honey! they made shoes for Mussolini's whores!) (OK, in the 90's a 325i was a sign you'd "made it" now it's a sign of something else) "Honey, BMW made the buses that drove Jews to Auschwitz! (doesn't matter, she loves the stupid "Propellor" logo (always looked like a Pinwheel to me)
Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

They used trains to transport to Auschwitz.

See: https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/494608_012815-cc-Auschwitz-thumb.jpg?w=1280&r=16:9

Someone has rebuilt those tracks because they weren't using lag bolts in the 1940s -- they were using railroad spikes back then.

What the Nazis did was forever end the practice of transporting troops in boxcars. It was so common during WWI that French boxcars had a capacity of men & horses stenciled on the sides of them.

[Absaroka]

"because they weren't using lag bolts in the 1940s -- they were using railroad spikes back then."

"Chair screws", not lag bolts:

"The chair screw was first introduced in 1860 in France (French tire-fond) and became common in continental Europe"

[Sarcastr0]

Because it's a Jewish owner?

And no, it's not terrorism. We like to reserve that for stuff that isn't vandalizing a car.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, YOU do. You're not much on considering 'protests' where people set cars on fire to be riots, either.

Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

So, unlawful, check.
Violence and intimidation, check.
Against civilians, check.
In pursuit of political aims, check.

Yes, it actually IS terrorism.

[tylertusta]

You forgot the cardinal rule of politics:

If the left does it, it's not that bad.

If the right does it, it's the worst thing ever.

[Michael P]

I prefer the pithier form: Your speech is violence, their violence is speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, it actually IS terrorism.

You know how the right gets mad at hate crime laws?

This is worse.

I don't care if you parse the elements juuust right and make some assumptions that just feel right to you.
If you end up saying a dude vandalizing a car is terrorism, you're just an authoritarian looking for an excuse.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: "authoritarian"
You're badly confused. Evenhandedly enforcing the laws against assault & property damage is in no way "authoritarian." On the other hand, letting your favored rioters / assaulters / vandals do whatever they want is. That's precisely what the Italian Fascist regime and, later, the German Nazi regime did. (And that's what we've seen lately in Democrat-run U.S. jurisdictions.)

[Sarcastr0]

There are laws against assault and property damage - those should absolutely be in play.

That's not what people are arguing for.

the Italian Fascist regime Pretty fucking rich of you to go there, Ed.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, you don't like fascist comparison when they are directed at your side? Interesting.

[Armchair]

Yes Sarcastr0.... Vandalizing a car, home, or business owned by a Jew with a swastika might be considered a hate crime. Jews and swastikas have a certain history you may be aware of.

And terrorism includes not just actual violence, but other actions which threaten violence (especially when connected with the actual violence).

Many Jews might consider a swastika being scrawled on their home, car, or business, a certain sort of "threat of violence".

Not that you really care....

[tylertusta]

Let's remember that Sarc's ideological allies considered irate parents that were upset at school boards to be domestic terrorists.

So it shouldn't surprise us that his compass is a little off.

[David Nieporent]

Let's remember that Sarc's ideological allies considered irate parents that were upset at school boards to be domestic terrorists.

Literally never happened.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Says the guy who thinks that moms who criticize their school should be slapped.

It was well documented when it literally happened.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: I said "smacked," not "slapped."

And that's the least wrong claim in your comment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"irate parents that were upset at school boards"

In particular, irate parents that were upset at a school board for covering up their daughter's rape in a girls' restroom by a boy in a skirt.

Because the school board thought the rape might interfere with the school's attempt to implement a policy allowing boys in girls' restrooms.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to push that hate crimes are good now, go ahead; your hypocricy can't get higher than it already is.

Terrorism? No, this isn't terrorism. And I think you know that.

Many Jews oh shut up and quit using Jews as cover for your authoritarianism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it is terrorism. It precisely fits the legal definition of terrorism, on every point.

Just because you like the cause the terror is meant to advance doesn't change that.

[Sarcastr0]

I think your post is terrorism.

Melodrama in service of authoritarianism. How camp.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

P.S.

Why are you serving a authoritarian regime?
Firebombing dealerships, intimidating people driving Tesla's, vandalizing their property... sure seems to fit the definition of domestic terrorism.

[Commenter_XY]

That is rich, Sarcastr0 = I think your post is terrorism

Lets go through Brett's helpful checklist. From his post. Was Brett's post....

Unlawful --> nope.
Violence and intimidation --> nope.
Against civilians --> this is a maybe.
In pursuit of political aims --> this is a definite.

I don't think it quite meets the definition.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's not treating "terrorism" as a legal category with a legal definition, is the thing. He's treating it as a swear word.

So, because he likes the cause, it can't be "terrorism", and never mind the legal definition fitting.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for the telepathy, but I actually don't like terrorism laws being brought to bear even when it's conservative vandalism.

You may not understand what it's like to have principles, but for reference that's what it looks like.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Such a principled Democrat! You see this everyone? he's just standing on core bedrock principles he's always held (since this morning...)

[not guilty]

The legal definition doesn't fit, Brett. The relevant definitions are set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2331. Subsection (5) states in relevant part:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

Vandalizing a car with a swastika is reprehensible, but it doesn't fit that definition. It does not, without more, "involve acts dangerous to human life."

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you'll concede B and C, and we're just arguing A at the moment?

I suppose if somebody scrawled a swastika on a car in isolation, it would fail A. The legal question would be, are the swastikas actually in isolation, or are they part of a campaign that includes incidents like this, which unambiguously meet A, too.

You'd have to demonstrate that the swastika scrawler was part of the campaign, of course, but if you could, I don't think the swastika scrawling itself would have to be life threatening.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Why are they vandalizing only Teslas? And firebombing only Tesla dealerships?

[Commenter_XY]

So breathing the fumes of the lithium batteries going up in smoke is not dangerous to human life? Leaving incendiary devices to explode during business hours isn't a violation of a criminal code?

Seems like that (A) box is checked.

[Sarcastr0]

"Acts of violence, vandalism, and domestic terrorism—like the recent Tesla attacks—will be pursued with the full force of the law"

Brett suddenly trusts the FBI and ATF when they make unsupported assertion.
Credibility is directly proportional to how much he wants to believe.

[I didn't trust that kind of stuff under Biden. Now that Trump has openly suborned every agency he can (and some he can't)?

This is not probative at all.]

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, Sarcastr0, you're the guy who won't call it a "riot" when protesters torch cars and smash windows. Nothing is probative for you if you like the cause it's done in support of.

[Sarcastr0]

Because he tried to deflect with an off-topic attack let me say it again:

Brett suddenly trusts the FBI and ATF when they make unsupported assertions.

[not guilty]

"So, you'll concede B and C, and we're just arguing A at the moment?"

I don't concede a damn thing. That's the thing about conjunctive connectors, Brett. If a definition contains elements a, b, and c, and any one of the three is not present, the definition is not satisfied.

[not guilty]

"So breathing the fumes of the lithium batteries going up in smoke is not dangerous to human life? Leaving incendiary devices to explode during business hours isn't a violation of a criminal code?"

XY, your reading comprehension gets worse and worse by the day. I specifically referenced vandalizing a car with a swastika, which does not, without more, "involve acts dangerous to human life."

Arson of a vehicle may or may not involve such a dangerous act, but I said nothing about any act of arson.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Gaslightr0 is in prime form today.

Now he's trying to convince everyone that Teslas all over the country aren't being vandalized, Tesla drivers aren't being intimidated by Democrat thugs, and Tesla dealerships aren't being firebombed.

Those are just "unsupported assertions"!!!

Why are you working for a regime that's so vile and evil, Sarcastr0? Don't you have any principles?

[damikesc]

Brett, I'd argue the fire bombing of EV's --- which has happened repeatedly --- and the known issues of dealing with said fires is absolutely dangerous to human life.

[Don Nico]

"I think your post is terrorism."
You are on a roll.

[Don Nico]

It always comes down to the Jews, and your defenses of people dressed up like Hamasniks, who preach killing Jews.

[Ed Grinberg]

It must be a pure happenstance that our local dean of leftist commenters comes down on the side of antisemites, I'm sure...

[Sarcastr0]

Using spurious accusations of antisemitism to attack objections to anti-speech authoritarianism is becoming all to common around here.

You're not only defending censorship and police state tactics you are devaluing accusations of antisemitism, which enables actual antisemites.

[Bob from Ohio]

"quit using Jews"

Quit pretending to be our white knight.

[Armchair]

"Many Jews oh shut up"

Sarcastr0 in a nutshell.

[Sarcastr0]

No one buys you care about Jews. You have made it clear antisemitism is just another cynical partisan cudgel for you.

[Armchair]

"No one buys you care about Jews."

Seems many people agree with me here. But when you say that...well, projection ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I fully support aggressive prosecution of these episodes. But it seems pretty obvious that the intended messaging is, “You, the Tesla owner, are a Nazi”, not “Look out Tesla owner, us Nazis are on to you”.

[Armchair]

"You, the Tesla owner, are a Nazi”

Why would the Tesla owner be a Nazi? That makes no sense. The individuals didn't buy these Tesla on some "Nazi" mission. Most of them probably don't agree with Musk at all.

It makes far more sense as a sign of intimidation, designed to attack.

[hobie]

Smack a Tesla with a bat = terrorist
Beat cops = patriot

[Don Nico]

So you approve torching cars and burning charging stations?
Do you think the number of such events is just a random, unmotivated fluctuation?
Please answer without resorting to a snark.

[hobie]

No I don't approve. It is crime, but not terrorism. Writing an op-ed on the bombing in Gaza is terrorism.

Of course it's not random. Just Legitimate Political Discourse, no?

[ThePublius]

I'm not following you, at all. How could an op-ed be terrorism? And how could an organized campaign to vandalize and destroy Teslas, charging stations, and dealerships for POLITICAL REASONS not be terrorism? And I don't get your last, "Just Legitimate Political Discourse, no?"

[Moderation4ever]

Sorry but you are wrong. Torching Tesla cars for political reasons is terrorism and it is not acceptable.

[Sarcastr0]

The definition of terrorism has not been applied to property crimes before; why do you think that's the proper scope now?

No one here is arguing torching or otherwise damaging Teslas is cool and good.

[Frank Drackman]

You heard him,
"House Warming" at Sarcastro's!!!!!!
make sure to bring your Keffiyeh!

Frank "I love the smell of burning Keffiyehs in the morning"

[ThePublius]

"While property crimes themselves are not terrorism, acts of property damage or destruction can be classified as terrorism if they are intended to intimidate, coerce, or influence a government or population, or are part of a broader pattern of violence or threats, according to FEMA. "

[Sarcastr0]

Do you have an example of an application, or just an unsourced quote?

[Frank Drackman]

Since you're a bit slow (should change your Nom de Guerre to "Sarcast-slow", don't tempt me, like 45/47 when I put a name on somebody it sticks, ask the Reverend Sandusky)
I'll say the "Duh" part for you
"Duhhh........... was 9-11 Terrorism???"

Frank

[Magister]

The 9/11 attack was only a property crime? Does that the nearly 3000 people reportedly killed were actually only crisis actors? The things you can learn from Dr. Ed 2's dissertation....

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's a discussion of the topic.

Note that arson qualifies. There HAVE been multiple episodes of arson against Tesla facilities. Arson is a crime which is legally considered to always carry a risk of killing somebody.

The current campaign of attacks on Tesla facilities and vehicles is clearly intended to persuade Musk to stop aiding the administration, the acts are illegal, some of them qualify on the basis of threatening human life, so at least SOME of them legally qualify as domestic terrorism.

I'll concede that if somebody independently decides for whatever reason to scrawl a swastika on a Tesla, that might be a terroristic threat depending on context, but it's not "domestic terrorism".

OTOH, if they do so as a component of the same terror campaign as is engaged in the arson... you can probably make the case for domestic terrorism. Generally, if you don't want terrorism charges, don't work in concert with people committing terrorism.

So, I'd say that we cannot say one way or the other about the swastika drawing without more individual information. But that there IS domestic terrorism going on at the moment according to legal definitions seems difficult to dispute.

I'm sure you'll give it a try, though.

[Sarcastr0]

"Jewish owner's Tesla vandalized with swastika."
Your goalpost is wandering.

And you're already on the "clearly" train.

terroristic threat
I don't even think that's a felony.

So, I'd say that we cannot say one way or the other
Sure you do. Just like with birtherism.

[David Nieporent]

The current campaign of attacks on Tesla facilities and vehicles is clearly intended to persuade Musk to stop aiding the administration, the acts are illegal, some of them qualify on the basis of threatening human life, so at least SOME of them legally qualify as domestic terrorism.

I'm really not interested in the whole "Is it terrorism?" discussion, but, no, it is not intended to persuade Musk to stop aiding the administration. You're really bad at understanding people's motivations. They're not trying to get Musk to do anything; they're just saying, "Musk, you suck, we hate you."

[Satchmo_Lives]

moved

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The alleged "hate criminal" was himself Jewish, according to the article. His "hate crime" was to draw his finger through the accumulated dust on another Jewish man's Cybertruck, creating a pattern colloquially recognizable as the message "ELON = [NAZI]" (the latter having been a Buddhist--or "backwards"--swastika, but probably unintentionally so).

Elon Musk is not Jewish. Elon Musk has infamously recently given what many people say was the NAZI salute in public, leading some people to (gosh, so unreasonably) believe that he had intended to give the NAZI salute in public. Amazingly, some people even believe that a non-Jewish, Afrikaner-sympathizing extreme right wing billionaire who enjoys making what appear to many people to be NAZI salutes in public, might himself be a NAZI.

Put the Jewish guy in jail for terrorism!

[Dr. Ed 2]

A burner phone -- $20.00
A month's service -- $15.00
The fun you could have pranking these people -- PRICELESS....

https://www.lucemass.org/

[Dr. Ed 2]

I say send them ALL to GITMO and let the lawyers sort it out from there. https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/03/26/thousands-protest-after-tufts-grad-student-arrested-by-ice-transferred-out-of-state/?p1=hp_featurestack

[Estragon]

I say we should send YOU to GITMO!

[Frank Drackman]

I've been there,
interesting place, legally it still belongs to Cuber, we're just leasing it, so babies that were born at the Naval Hospital had to have their Birth Certificates flown to Miami to get Notarized, also, being part of Cuber, there were no taxes on Alcohol (Fed Tax is $13/gallon, State tax Varies by State with WA the highest at $36.55/gallon and NH the lowest at zero) or Tobacco so the main pastime was getting drunk and smoking*, you didn't have to worry about DUI's because you didn't need a car (a few peoples had their nice cars shipped, but most of the cars there were "Git-Mo-Biles" (get it?) old Jalopies passed down from Sailor to Sailor, they made Fred Sanford's Truck look like a new F-150,
Frank

* and chasing the Banana Rats/Iguanas

[David Nieporent]

And then NUKE IT!!!!!

[John F. Carr]

Multiple media outlets report that the government will allow the IRS to tell DHS the addresses of aliens as recorded in tax records. Traditionally the IRS is reluctant to share. Tax filings can contain incriminating information, in the broad sense beyond the Fifth Amendment. The IRS wanted that information and associated revenue even at the cost of making some evidence inadmissible.

If you don't want the government to know your address – if you're illegal, undocumented, pro-Palestinian, or otherwise at risk of removal – you can try to get paid under the table or give a fake address. In the first case the government loses tax revenue. I don't know what happens if your IRS forms give an address like "Immigration Evasion Services, PMB 1234, 567 Main St."

[Ska]

"Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge."

If an agent wanted to be aggressive, they might try to allege tax perjury under IRC 7206. Paid preparers are addressed in 7206(2).

[Life of Brian]

Shades of Al Capone.

[Frank Drackman]

You should call him "Mr. Capone" if you know what's good for you

[Commenter_XY]

Alternatively, they can self-deport and go home, John F Carr. 😉

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, if I am not mistaken, there is no penalty for not filing if you don't owe the IRS anything -- if enough has been withheld to cover your taxes due.

What you won't get is the Earned Income Credit (EIC) that a lot of illegals are scamming the system with, which is why they now require the SSNs of said children.

And if the IRS stops printing paper checks, then there will have to be a bank account and related info.

[Noscitur a sociis]

John, if I am not mistaken, there is no penalty for not filing if you don't owe the IRS anything -- if enough has been withheld to cover your taxes due.

You are, predictably, mistaken. See 26 U.S.C. § 6012.

What you won't get is the Earned Income Credit (EIC) that a lot of illegals are scamming the system with, which is why they now require the SSNs of said children.

You think there are a lot of illegals immigrants filing federal tax returns?

[Ska]

I was going to make a similar comment as to your first point (i.e. filing requirements). While it's true that if your tax liability is paid there won't be a penalty or interest as there is no outstanding tax liability on which to assess penalties or interest, you are still required to file a tax return. It is worth filing if only to close the period with respect to the statute of limitations on a tax year. An unfiled return remains open to examination until filed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You are, predictably, mistaken. See 26 U.S.C. § 6012."

Where does that say anything about penalties?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The penalty provision are set out in a different statute, 26 U.S.C. § 7203.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, dear...

[Kazinski]

We need the illegals to replace the 7 million children who disappeared in 1987 when they started requiring social security numbers for children.

[David Nieporent]

What you won't get is the Earned Income Credit (EIC) that a lot of illegals are scamming the system with, which is why they now require the SSNs of said children.

No illegal immigrants are entitled to the EITC, regardless of SSNs of children. As always, everything you say is wrong.

[John F. Carr]

A federal judge in New York City upheld the city's ban on use of fossil fuels in new residential buildings. Plaintiffs claimed that the city is trying to regulate energy efficiency of appliances, a task reserved to the federal government. The law sets a limit of 25 kg of CO₂ per million BTUs. Judge Abrams explicitly declined to follow the Ninth Circuit's contrary ruling striking down a similar Berkeley ordinance.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68125895/association-of-contracting-plumbers-of-the-city-of-new-york-inc-v-city/

[Brett Bellmore]

And there's one of your 80-20 issues, with the Democrats picking the 20 side.

We recently replaced our aging glass top electric range with a mid tier gas range, the Frigidaire 30 inch "professional".

I've had to get used to a few minor things that gas is actually worse on, like the handles of the pans tending to heat up, but all in all, I'm quite happy. And the air sous vide function works great.

[hobie]

If it works properly, you are gonna love sous vide

[Brett Bellmore]

It worked great for the brisket. I think I might try eggs next, actually. (Partly because I need to resupply on vacuum bags.)

[Commenter_XY]

The glide racks are nice. Very pricey to replace. Please don't ask how I know this.

[Life of Brian]

Self cleaned 'em? I made that mistake once. Turns out you can actually get replacement high-temp lube and work enough into the bearings to get them back pretty close to factory condition.

[Commenter_XY]

Sigh. I plead the 5th.

[Don Nico]

Yes, about $400 per glide rack.

[Frank Drackman]

Osama Appointment, big surprise, probably lives in a big house in Westchester, and how does she get to her courtroom in Manhattan, on a Flying Carpet?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Any ideas why Sacastr0 continues to serve a Fascist Regime?

Seems just like how most Liberals fight Climate Change... with as little personal inconvenience as possible.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Any ideas why Sacastr0 continues to serve a Fascist Regime?"

Money? Lack of other job prospects?

[santamonica811]

Because he cares about public service? Because he likes his job?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

"I really care about public service, so I am going to work for a Fascist Regime!"

"I like my job at this Fascist Regime!"

Those make sense.

[Bwaaah]

The opening of this day comes from Frank Drackman who says:

  "Secretary Hedge-sex just told me the bombing begins in 5 minutes"

I was deeply skeptical a couple of years ago when D.C. Democrats tried to move state control of election procedures into the hands of Congress. Now, one man has grabbed those reigns.

We can depend on our vibrant adversarial legal system to advocate on our behalf against abuse of authority. (Even I have heard of Skadden, and know how big and powerful they are.)

Fear not the legitimacy of our security. (They hide their faces now.)

The courts have the final word in our system of justice. (It's not even worth posting a link for this one.)

Take this in, friends.

[ducksalad]

That executive order on election procedures is not so important in practical effect.

1. A lot of it is about the federal uniform registration form, which was designed to be more convenient than some of the state processes. He's now (if the EO is upheld) made it less convenient than most state processes. The only practical effect is that most people will just go back to doing it the old way.

2. Some parts are just meaningless, for example, the requirement that citizenship be verified before federal aid recipients are given the blank form. The form can be downloaded on the Internet and is freely distributed by private organizations.

3. He does the now standard Trump EO Weasel - he proposes a bunch of clearly illegal stuff (see below) but then ends with a phrase that nothing should be interpreted to conflict with the law.

The illegal parts of the EO:

1. The law creating the form says that no "formal authentication" is required to submit it. Trump is requiring that a state/local official look at an ID to authenticate citizenship.

2. It tries to regulate voting for presidential electors. The feds have no authority over how presidential electors are selected.

3. Denying funding to states that do not comply with the illegal parts of his executive order.

There is also more of his anti-birthright citizenship obsession hidden in the EO. He enumerates ways to prove citizenship. Notably, he excludes birth certificates.

[Frank Drackman]

From Wikipedia so you know it's true (no snark, they're usually pretty accurate)
"Boasberg is an aficionado of William Shakespeare's plays. In February 2018, he played a crown prosecutor in The Trial of Hamlet that was presented at the Shakespeare Theatre Company."
I too had the acting bug when I was younger, playing the Avaricious Dr Boeckman in our 5th grade class Play, "Hans Brinker and the Silver Skates" (OK H8ers, I know it's either "Hans Brinker" or "The Silver Skates: A Story of Life in Holland", it was 1973, Minot AFB ND, nobody cared)
Yes, even at 10 yrs I was typecast as the Greedy Jewish Doctor, it's the Nose, always the Nose, (and if you remember your Hans Brinker Dr. Boekman comes through in the end, completing the life saving Craniotomy free of charge)
Of Course, the next year, we did "Jesus Christ Superstar" and you know who they wanted me to play, (not the Jew who walked on the water, the Jew who ratted him out)
end of acting career, Exit little Frankie, stage Left (HT Snagglepus)

Frank

[ReaderY]

The Trump Administration has taken to deliberately evading Habeas Corpus jurisdictional rules by classic secret-police tactics, arresting people secretly, holding them incommunicado, and secretly shuttling them from secret location to secret location. Then if their captivity is discovered, government lawyers argue in court that their petitions are invalid. Traditionally habeas corpus petitions must be filed in the district of confinement. This permits the government to argue that either their lawyers didn’t guess the correct secret location where they were confined, or (surprise!) they are no longer there and are now in a different secret location, so the petititon has to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

What can/should be done about this?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

It's pretty sickening to see Trump use your party's own tactics deployed against the J6'ers back at your party.

Truly sickening.

[ReaderY]

That didn’t happen

Not only were the “J6ers” legitimately imprisoned pre-trial because they were charged with crimes and legitimately denied bail in a bail hearing before a neutral magistrate, and legitimately imprisoned afterwards because they had been duly convicted in a fair trial, they were never prevented from contacting their lawyers. There is no comparison.

Your attempt to claim the two are comparable is as much pulling shit out of your ass as trying to justify Trump’s attempted assassination by claiming that because Timothy McVeigh was “murdered” by a Republican (Bush signed his final death warrant), it’s only fair that Republicans own tactics get used against them.

[Bob from Ohio]

The trials were in DC, they weren't "fair". Potemkin trials.

[Bob from Ohio]

"arresting people secretly"

Oh, seems I saw videos of the arrests of the pro-Hamas guy and gal being arrested.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Deliberately obtuse, or natural ability...

[damikesc]

Yeah. If it was secret, he would not know of them.

[M L]

Agree or disagree:

In selecting from among the billions of people who would immigrate to the United States, it would be good if the United States could somehow make an attempt to select for those immigrants who support freedom and limited self-government.

[jb]

I'd rather select on all sorts of other things (like skills and/or the ability to contribute to the economy) than political ideology.

[M L]

A lot of socialists and communists and other leftists want to effect change by packing the electorate with immigrants who will vote for their agenda. That's what they consistently say, anyway.

I agree that skills and economic considerations should be the main criteria. I'm not really sure how you would even select for cultural values. I guess deporting gang members, violent criminals, and terrorist sympathizers is a crude gesture in that direction.

[Josh R]

I suspect many on the far right would like to do so as well.

We tolerate speech unworthy of protection because we don't trust the government to decide what is unworthy. We ought to tolerate letting people in with inimical political views because we don't trust the government to determine what views are inimical.

Three cheers for viewpoint neutrality.

[M L]

"We ought to tolerate letting people in with inimical political views"

Ok. But how many?

And just how inimical?

What you've said here has an appealing simplicity but I don't think it actually works or is complete.

[Josh R]

Viewpoint neutrality demands no threshold based on how inimical. As to the number, that's OK so long as it is not based on viewpoint.

[M L]

So if someone's political ideology is that America is the Great Satan and we should fly planes into sky scrapers on Wall Street, that doesn't matter, such a viewpoint cannot be taken into consideration (assuming they're not inciting imminent lawless action, of course).

Or, suppose someone's political ideology is just to vote for the communist party. Further suppose that 1 billion people share that viewpoint. We cannot refuse 1 billion communists from coming here - not on the basis that this would turn us into a communist country, anyway. Perhaps we could use some other basis as a pretext?

[Josh R]

Correct, for the same reason the Nazis could march in Skokie.

[M L]

The reason for that though is that we don't want the government to ban or regulate speech, whereas we do want the government to regulate borders and immigration and foreign relations. Particularly, we don't want the government to regulate the speech of citizens or persons in the country over which the government actually has jurisdiction. Our government regulating the speech of some foreign person in a foreign land isn't really a concern because that is not in our jurisdiction and we have no proper authority or power to actually do it anyway. Declining to grant someone the privilege of immigrating here is not actually banning or regulating their speech, even if it is done on the basis of it. On the other hand, we want the government to be selective on immigration in a way that is in the best interests of citizens, which would exclude for example those who want to blow up citizens. The idea we can't do that is like saying we can't conduct foreign policy that might disfavor foreign leaders or persons who say things we don't like because that would infringe on their freedom of speech. That's absurd.

These positions are just asinine on the face of it. I mean really, as a normative matter we must be open to bringing 1 billion communists here making us a communist nation, because we value free speech? How does that protect free speech?

[Josh R]

Under Trump, we could end up denying entry to anybody who doesn't think the body of water between Texas and Florida is the Gulf of America.

Now perhaps as to entry, that kind of speech suppression is OK to keep out those damned communists. But, that's what you have to accept in your regimen.

[rloquitur]

It does not trump society's right to dictate the terms of entry.

[not guilty]

rloquitur, as to aliens who are here, we are not talking about the terms of entry.

[damikesc]

Yeah, we are.

If you lied to get your visa, you violated the terms of entry.

We won't send you to jail for it. We will just send you home.

[Michael Ejercito]

That is an argument to make to Congress.

[jb]

A lot of socialists and communists and other leftists want to effect change by packing the electorate with immigrants who will vote for their agenda. That's what they consistently say, anyway.

I have never heard someone say such a thing. Can you point to some examples?

[M L]

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0036QVPEU/reasonmagazinea-20/

[jb]

First, that's a book from 2002 written by two people. It predates significant coalition shifting that we first saw with Obama and more recently with Trump.

Second, it doesn't actually support your contention at all. It says there's a bunch of changes that are ongoing that will result in a Democratic majority, including, e.g. more people getting college education and the growth of non-white populations compared to the white population. I'm not even sure if immigration factors in--it's certainly not one of the headline shifts, although it's admittedly one of the reasons why the non-white population is growing.

Importantly, though, it's not an advocacy book: it's not saying we *should* encourage any of the changes because it will result in a Democratic majority, it's just saying these trends are leading in that direction. So I'm still waiting for you to find a single person saying we should bring in immigrants to change election results. That's a made up Repulican boogeyman as far as I can tell.

[Satchmo_Lives]

Saying it? I guess only dems can look at actions of a Republican president and infer intent.

[jb]

Hey, M L is the one claiming that lots of people "consistently say" it, not me!

[M L]

The main point of the book is they believed demographic changes resulting from immigration would, among other factors, lead to a permanent Democrat majority, and that this was already happening, and that it was all a big cause for celebration. There's more to it than just demographic changes, but that's a major part of it and was largely what the left and right took away from the book.

After that book, which was influential and often referred to years later, there are countless examples of progressives hailing what they saw as electoral victory due to massive population changes resulting from immigration. Sort of a "quiet part out loud" thing though.

[Magister]

The book reported demographic changes which were happening, and observed that Democrats would benefit. Saying "changes resulting from immigration" is a mischaracterization, and it wasn't encouraging immigration to achieve this.

One could more easily and more fairly say Republicans encouraged lack of education for political advantage.

[Frank Drackman]

Almost like people can think and vote intelligently, even the dark skinned ones

[M L]

"The book reported demographic changes which were happening,"

Yes, as a result of immigration

"and observed that Democrats would benefit."

....And celebrated this joyous (purported) fact.

" Saying "changes resulting from immigration" is a mischaracterization"

No it's not

"it wasn't encouraging immigration to achieve this."

Incorrect

[Kenneth Almquist]

One of the points made in chapter 2 of the book was that minorities were lining up behind the Democrats. This was a big shift for Chinese and Vietnamese voters, who had traditionally voted Republican because the Republican party seemed to be more anticommunist. There is a mention of immigration:

Asian, Hispanic, black and other minority voters, swelled by the enormous wave of immigration during the 1990s, are now about 19 percent of the voting electorate, and they gave Gore at least 75 percent support in the 2000 election.

This passing reference doesn’t support your claim about wanting to “pack” the electorate. You made that up, and now don’t have the grace to admit it.

[David Nieporent]

The main point of the book is they believed demographic changes resulting from immigration would, among other factors, lead to a permanent Democrat majority,

The main point of the book had nothing to do with immigration. Immigration is barely even addressed in the book. "Demographic changes" does not mean "immigration."

The sporadic references to immigration were about the idea that the Dems being pro-immigrant would secure them the votes of already-present minorities who shared the same ethnic groupings as the immigrants.

[Commenter_XY]

Why not both? Skills/ability + support freedom and limited self government

[Swede425]

This.
Like there aren't enough doctors, scientists, engineers who want to get into our country that aren't terrorist-loving shitbags?
There are.
The rest can pound sand.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I prefer both or no immigrants. It is our choice. I don't care how good of an engineer they are. If they have a mentality equal to, or further left, of most European countries, I don't want them here. Ya know, hate speech is a crime, entitlements out the ass etc.

See ML comment down the thread where London mayor is mad at Amazon for selling kitchen knives.

[hobie]

So basically sort by political affiliation. That usually works for awhile in fascist countries...until it doesn't

[Josh R]

Bad idea because there is no principled way to define "freedom" and there is legitimate disagreements on when "limited self-government" is good or bad (context matters).

[ducksalad]

ML asks if we should select for those immigrants who support freedom and limited self-government.

If we're going to do that, below is my proposed quiz. And hell, while we're at it, why not apply it to citizens returning from abroad, say from a trip to Greenland.

Section 1: Freedom

1. Do you support freedom of speech, protecting the speech itself regardless of the citizenship of the speaker or origin of the speech?
2. Do you support freedom of trade across borders, without tariffs or other levies?
3. Do you support a right to a lawyer, that includes complete protection against government retaliation, or the appearance of retaliation, for taking a legal position the government disagrees with?
4. Do you agree that every person born in the United States is strictly entitled to citizenship if they desire it, with no exceptions and with zero consideration of their parents or ancestors?

Section 2: Limited Government

1. Do you agree that any taxes, tariffs, fees or other levies must set only by the legislative branch, and the executive branch may never have any role in creating a tax, tariff, or levy?
2. Do you oppose any further increases taxes, tariffs, fees, or other levies, regardless of which branch initiates them?
3. Does your opposition specifically include raising tariffs now based on a promise to lower other taxes later?
4. Do you agree that government officials, especially including the president, should be strictly limited in their authority to powers explicitly granted by the laws and constitution?
5. Do you deny that there are any implied federal powers other than those granted explicitly by the constitution or laws?
6. Does your answer to (3) specifically, and especially, apply to the current president and any claims of power he may make?

Section 3: Self-Government

1. Do you agree that the people, through their elected representatives, are strictly entitled to minutely regulate every aspect of the president's conduct in executing the laws?
2. Do you deny that any government official has any form of "immunity" from criminal prosecution?
3. Do you agree that when the people vote, the legitimacy of the result should not be falsely challenged, and that those who take any official action or file any suit in court based on claims that they know or should have known are false, should be punished as criminals?

[M L]

"Do you support freedom of speech"

Yes

"protecting the speech itself regardless of the citizenship of the speaker or origin of the speech?"

No, it's not any of my business to try to "protect" the speech of someone on the other side of the world

"Do you support freedom of trade across borders, without tariffs or other levies?"

First do freedom of earning an income in my own backyard without taxes, then we'll talk

"Do you agree that every person born in the United States is strictly entitled to citizenship if they desire it, with no exceptions and with zero consideration of their parents or ancestors?"

No, as Democrat Harry Reid said "no sane country" would allow birth tourism and the 14th amendment did not mean that originally

[Frank Drackman]

Agree, and there needs to be a Cover Charge, just like you pay to get in a Classy Nightclub, nothing too onerous, $100K or so (and that's per family member) Like the old 70's Bumper Sticker, "Ass, Gas, or Grass, nobody rides for free"

Frank

[M L]

UK is going to ban "ninja swords" now

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/03/28/uk-to-ban-ninja-swords-by-this-summer/

...The British government also obsessed over the availability of knives in the aftermath of the Southport killings, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer blasting online retailer Amazon.com for selling kitchen knives, the British media following suit. There is even a celebrity-backed campaign in the UK to ban the sale of kitchen knives with a point, claiming this isn’t needed for an average home chef and could simply be rounded off.

[ThePublius]

Next they'll ban pointy sticks and rocks.

[ReaderY]

What about fresh fruit?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure this law already bans durian as written. I've still got a scar from encountering one of those.

[Satchmo_Lives]

I want to try one so bad. Did you try it, or just smell it? I have a half functioning sniffer most of the time. I bet I could do it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Tried it.

I actually rather like the flavor of durian, but I do have to admit the smell, (Approximately rotting garlic.) can be offputting.

[Absaroka]

"ban the sale of kitchen knives with a point, claiming this isn’t needed for an average home chef and could simply be rounded off."

I hate to break it to them, but you can also un-round that tip pretty easily to get the point back. You don't need a CNC mill, a brick will work.

(also, I sure use the point of kitchen knives all the time. Do they do anything with their knives besides slice bread?)

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, I think the only thing they do with their knives is butter bread. Your average home cook doesn't need to slice bread, it comes pre-sliced...

[Commenter_XY]

Clearly, the UK needs strong 'sharp knife' control laws. Definitely. /sarc

[ThePublius]

The U.K. actually went kooky on gun and weapon control 100 years ago. Notably, in WWII when there was a chance the Germans would invade, they made a plea for U.S. sportsmen to lend rifles so that they could arm the U,K. populace. When the war ended, rather than return them, they dumped them in the Channel.

Never mind guns, virtually every form of self defense is outlawed, even spraying one's attacker with paint so they can possibly be caught.

I say f' them, if they are at risk of being invaded again, they can learn to speak Russian or German or whatever. I'm not helping.

[Brett Bellmore]

Worth remembering that 1984 was about England.

[Sarcastr0]

You're against freedom of speech, against academic freedom, against social media platform freedom of association, for an ideological purge of the civil service, have no problem with strongarming lawfirms, support threats to Greenland, want to go after Tesla vandals as terrorists...

And then you are going to call the UK tyrannical.

[rloquitur]

Tesla vandals. Yeah, it's just that and nothing else. Let some people throw Molotov cocktails at your home and see how you feel about it.

But you can't talk at all about rights. It was you who think that people don't have a right, in their own homes, to use force to kick out a squatter. Fifth Amendment. If I come home, and I find a squatter, the presence of the squatter doesn't dispossess me of my right to be in my own home. That means, of course, that I can use force to protect myself against the threat. You got all fucking maudlin about hurting poor squatters.

Same with the anti-Jewish crap at UCLA. If I were a UCLA student, I would go to one of those protests wearing an Israeli flag. Some protesters try to mess with me, well, too bad so bad. You guys are all good with this mob bullshit.

[Don Nico]

That is simply insanity. You cannot slit open a lobster with a knife with a rounded point. In fact you cannot do not butchery at home without a knife that has a pointed end.

[ReaderY]

Many supporters of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act and other deportation actions have argued that because these people are obviously criminals, it would be foolish for Democrats and civil libertarians to waste their time trying to defend them.

This deserves an answer.

Prior to the Holocaust, there were years of relentless propaganda impressing on people that Jews were dangerous criminals. Propaganda works, even for Americans. By the time the Holocaust came about, people had begun believing the relentlessly repeated official protrayal of Jews. Moreover, Hitler took advantage of the German equivalent of the Alien Enemies Act. The Nuremberg laws stripped Jews of citizenship and made them legally aliens. When WWII broke out, Hitler formally declared them enemy aliens. And in constructing the Final Solution, Hitler used ordinary laws and procedures for interning and deporting enemy aliens accepted by international law. He was careful to construct death camps (as distinct from concentration camps) outside the (expanded) borders of Germany proper, in occupied but technically non-German territory, where Germany was, under German and international law, no longer responsible for what happened to them. So his deportation of Jews to death camps had a legal foundation that was essentially the same as Trump’s deportation of allegedly criminal alleged alien enemies to El Salvadoran prisons.

The holocaust should give pause to anyone who thinks that a country should simply accept a leader’s characterization of a group as dangerous criminals and enemies with no opportunity to challenge the characterization. The Framers of our Constitution made Congress and not the President responsible for deciding who our enemies are for a reason. They didn’t want such a decision, fraught with perils to liberty and to the country’s security, to be in the hands of a single individual.

I have, in my posts, attempted to neutrally call the law as I see it. But the fact of the matter is our Framers were terribly concerned about a single individual attwmpting to acquire undue power and took steps to divide that power to prevent it.

As the holocaust illustrates, the fact that a leader’s characterization claims people are dangerous and enemies does not mean they are. Power-hungry leaders have lied about these things for their own purposes from time immemorial. The word of such a leader and a dime not only won’t buy you a cup of coffee, the sum has often proven to be worth less than the dime alone.

For this reason, opponents should not be afraid of rhe consequences of vigorously contesting President Trump’s claims. Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed that various groups are criminals, enemies, or both to suit his own purposes. There is simply no reason that his word should be believed.

[Bob from Ohio]

tl:dr

Comparison with the Shoah is not only wrong but terribly offensive to Jews.

[ReaderY]

Perhaps in the same way that any discussion of past civil rights incidents and cases where African-Americans were spoken of pejoratively is terribly offensive to some African-Americans. But should it be? Fail to discuss the past honestly, fail to study it. Fail to study the past, get doomed to repeat it.

I have said very little about my identity.

But I am not a Venezualian. Should I say nothing?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its the comparison alone that is offensive. There have been other mass murders before but not on an industrial scale in the middle of modern Europe. The greatest disaster to Jews since the Roman massacres in the first century.

There is zero, actually less than zero, comparison with 2025 USA.

[ReaderY]

I’m not talking about what happened in 1943. I’m talking about what was happening 10 years earlier, in 1933. The US situation today is quite comparable to then. Trump’s efforts to paralyze the legislature and courts and rule directly are going more slowly than Hitler’s in 1933, but they are definitely and noticeably moving forward, and in a similar direction.

None of us know what Trump will do in 10 years. Sure, Trump is doing things a lot smaller. But Hitler’s scale was a lot smaller when he first started. And nobody knew what he was going to end up doing either.

There were quite a few Jews in 1932 and 1933 who supported Hitler because they thought his threats to rid of German of its Jews - which they assumed meant expell them - would result in a rush of new Jewish immigrants to Palestine. In short, they supported Hitler because they thought he would be good for Israel.

At any rate, buck up, deal with it, and don’t be so offended by efforts to seriously discuss the mess we’re in.

[Commenter_XY]

ReaderY, who are the Jews of 1933, in today's 2025?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fortunately, not the Jews! (And well played for getting out in front of it this time.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It should be the accuracy of the comparison which is offensive...

[Sarcastr0]

Bob loves to claim outrage privilege, and then posts shit like "No not guilty today. Did he climax during the hearing and sleeping it off? Or day drinking because of the wrist slapping?"

And he's never called out any of the open MAGA antisemites around here.

I'm not sure why he thinks anyone should care he got mad.

[not guilty]

Bob, if you will indulge an observation from a mostly Irish Protestant, Jews who take umbrage at comparison with the Shoah should be especially careful to call out a President's routine reliance upon the Big Lie.

Please recall who said:

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I fear you may be inadvertently misleading your readers; the book Ivana and others reported Trump as having kept by his bedside was not Mein Kampf, but a collection of Hitler's speeches.

Obviously, the former would have been written at too high a grade level for Trump to have followed. Hitler's speeches, on the other hand, were just what he was looking for...

[damikesc]

Can you ever make a point?

You mistake verbiage with intellect. You have tons of one and are lacking in the other.

[damikesc]

Very tl; dr.

I can read better fiction elsewhere.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Attorney General Pam Bondi not only shut the door on investigating whether criminal laws were broken in the Signal group chat fiasco but actively engaged in political attacks and rhetorical spin to defend the Trump administration and assail its critics.

(I'm not going to use some stupid nickname for her, though, as a Petticoat Junction fan would note her full name is Pamela Jo Bondi.)

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/pam-bondi-takes-point-on-covering-up-trumps-signal-fiasco

Her clowning involved bringing up Hillary Clinton (OWNED!) and (on Fox News) she "attacked three DC federal judges by name as unable to be impartial or objective before singling out Boasberg for his role in the Signal case."

This leads the woke Wall St. Journal to comment:

“The Justice Department’s approach thus far stands in contrast with its customary role of examining serious national-security breaches.

I was less open to using Merrick Garland as a whipping boy than some on my side of the ideological line, in part since he did bring respectability back to the Justice Department. This was quite an important task. I acknowledge his problems regarding addressing the Trump situation but do note he had a lot of help there.

[Frank Drackman]

Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! (is that how you say it? "Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!"?)
Throwin out the Petticoat Junction Challenge Flag, (I was a Bobbi Joe fan myself)
never quite understood, I thought "the Beverly Hillbillies" were from Tennessee, and "Green Acres" and "Petticoat Junction" were out in Arkansas, but they all seemed to know each other.

Frank "Excuse Bronx Joe, he was born a little slow"

[not guilty]

The Beverly Hillbillies was ambiguous as to where the Clampetts moved from, although Daisy Moses (Granny) was from Tennessee. The others may have been from the Ozarks.

[Magister]

The state containing Hooterville, where Green Acres and Petticoat Junction were set, was never pinned down, although it did get mentioned in The Beverly Hillbillies.

[Voize of Reazon]

They seemed to deliberately obfuscate the location of the old homestead. There were several hints that placed it in the Ozark hills, maybe Arkansas, maybe Missouri, but in the first episode when the oil company executive is being shown the Clampett's oil-filled swamp his employee says "That's going to be one of the richest pools in east Texas".

[Voize of Reazon]

Scratch that. He says "since east Texas", not "in east Texas".

[Michael P]

This was not a "serious national-security breach", so of course it's not being treated like one.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, I'm sure they've never done anything like it before!

[Bob from Ohio]

"he did bring respectability back to the Justice Department"

Delusional

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

"None of the vaccines that are given during the first 6 months of life have ever been tested for autism—the only one was the DTP vaccine.
And that one study that was done ... they threw out that study.”

RFK, Jr.

Govies are sick sick sick people. Look how many children they harm for their greedy corrupt gains.

Sick. Vile humans. And this:

---
Planned Parenthood staff admits under oath to committing illegal partial-birth abortions to obtain intact organs to sell
They pull a baby out feet first—except the head—stick scissors in, suction her brain out & crush her skull

---

Democrats can't even be human. They must be some other species. Something whose lineage starts at Satan (like the little-hat big nose types...)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Marco Rubio, after being asked about the seizure of someone off the street allegedly for writing an op-ed, angrily noted that non-citizens here on a visa do not have the right to make a "ruckus" and compared it to kicking someone out of your home who soiled the couch or something.

Not quite the same thing. If I kick the person out of my Bronx residence, they are not going into a detention center in LA.

The major issue is the lack of due process.* Before taking people off the street, transferring them to a detention center a long distance away, and perhaps even sending them to a foreign prison, due process of law is warranted. It is a basic duty of both the Constitution and a reasonable country.

I'd hope that they had more than an op-ed, though it would not surprise me if her name was particularly flagged (over many others, the government had no easy way to single out) that way.

But, it is not like the administration leads me to trust they won't screw up royally. Either way, due process would provide a means to prove it with more than bare general allegations.

==

* I think there are other issues involved, including the right of people to speak, worship, and so on with some degree of liberty, without being deported even if a fair procedure is followed.

Nonetheless, procedural due process is the floor here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone who won't leave your house will wind up arrested....

[rloquitur]

I think that what those who support the immigrants miss is that society has the right to dictate the terms upon which people join the society. Mahmoud Khalil is an agitator, and his actions (not his speech) are just unacceptable. He spoke for CUAD etc. etc.

It gets a little dicier from a PR perspective with respect to the Korean woman. If I were running the show; she'd receive a warning.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Supreme Coiurt rejected, on the merits, a first amendment challenge to the U.S. kicking out an alien who joined the Communist Party.

[TwelveInchPianist]

College students are out of control! Brown student single-handedly harms 3,805 administrators!

[M L]

LOL! The horror of being asked to describe what tasks you did last week.

3,805 is a lot of administrators. Maybe they could bring that down to around 12.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The question I have about the Brown student is how did he get the email addresses?

That may be the actual issue here.

[Sarcastr0]

Lessons from Signalgate:

1. In this administration what's classified depends on who is asking.
2. Embarrassing the administration won't get you fired so long as you're loyal. It might even be a value add, if Trump can use your exposure to bind you to him closer.
3. This admin will reflexively lie before they get their story together.
4. Not new, but a stark example of how this admin, when it does get it's story together, will attack outsiders with pretty wild lies.

And finally,
5. Stephen Miller seems to be in charge.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Stephen Miller seems to be in charge."

We can hope.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably a Jew

[Commenter_XY]

He still doesn't understand that Stephen Miller is a feature, not a bug.

[tylertusta]

This thing is such a clown show.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

This is a demonstration of power. Who wields the most? The IC saboteurs and their media lap dogs and Democrats?

Or the good guys? Ignoring the performative couch feinters is a big fuck you to La Resistance.

Proof it's working is your whinging.

[Michael Ejercito]

What is an IC?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Intelligence Community

You know the ones who undermine Democracies all over the world (except for ours *wink* *wink*)

[ThePublius]

This was nothing compared to the screw-ups and lying of the previous Dem admins in the Benghazi and Afghanistan affairs. No one died here! (Well, no U.S. people died.) No harm was done, only embarrassment. Move on.

I know it's whataboutism, but it's instructional. Where was your outrage then?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

All over the Internet, in my case.

A better question is, where's your outrage now?

[Moderation4ever]

People in Gaza have started to protest against Hamas's control. I like to see more of this covered in the media. I also like to see more of the young people in the US join protests supporting those Palestinians opposing Hamas. Finally, this would be a great way to determine who you support is it the Palestinians or Hamas. I like to see the Republicans introduce a resolution supporting Palestinians opposing Hamas and see on some of the far-left Democrats vote.

[Commenter_XY]

Good luck with this one = I also like to see more of the young people in the US join protests supporting those Palestinians opposing Hamas

Whatever you're smoking, it sounds pretty good.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The more interesting thing here is that Hamas is no longer able to shoot them on sight.

That means that Hamas' power isn't what it once was.

[M L]

I would like to see less of the whole topic being relevant or mentioned on this side of the glove.

[Frank Drackman]

Important to be on the right side of the glove

[M L]

Doh! That's Glowb.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

some of the far-left Democrats vote

I would like to see how they all vote if the resolution is phrased to be supportive of Palestinians, with some duties given to each side.

[Don Nico]

Joe,
You request seems to imply that there is actually a peace partner with whom Israel can engage. The experience in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria is that there is no such partner among the Palestinians. Just ask why Abbas has not held elections for 16 years after his term expired. That is because the PA would lose to Hamas in Judea and Samaria.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm just following the resolution hypo.

Anyway, whatever is possible, the resolution can acknowledge that Israelis and Palestinians both have responsibilities.

As to peace possibilities, such as a possible two state solution, just ask many Israelis.

[Don Nico]

M4e,
The problem is the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria continue to believe that the should be no Jews in Palestine, not even Arab Jews.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not sure that is really the case. Israel is the only real middle east country that is a democracy where you can protest. In the other countries protesting can mean you disappear. The history of Israel and Palestine has had periods of where local leaders Jew and Palestinian have worked together. These periods are usually short as radical elements will resort to brutal and extreme measures to keep people in line.

[Sarcastr0]

Israel is the only real middle east country that is a democracy where you can protest. In the other countries protesting can mean you disappear.

I don't think that's true. I mean, none are as free as Israel but there have been mass protests in Iran and Turkey against the government recently without the protesters all disappearing.

And the Arab Spring.

I'm open to being corrected; my source is news reports I remember not like a deep dive.

[Absaroka]

"can mean you disappear"

"all disappearing"

I think M4E's point was some protesters disappear[1], which seems accurate.

[1]or get imprisoned or executed or whatever

[Commenter_XY]

Try demonstrating against Khamenei in Tehran and see what happens.

[Hugh]

Impeach Hegseth.

[Estragon]

Make hegseth a TV host again! I think he’d be a lot happier slamming double G&T’s at 10am and touching up his crusader tattoos rather than exhibiting debilitating impostor syndrome on signal threads.

Deus vult? More like Deus gulp

[Bob from Ohio]

He's blowing up stuff. I bet he' s plenty happy.

[Estragon]

Is he? Seems like he’s dittoheading JD on text and desperately trying to fit in. Must be hard for a professed gin lover who allegedly gave it up cold turkey a month ago. Ever met a gin drunk?

[Bob from Ohio]

Besides blowing up stuff, he's flying around working out with soldiers. Beats sitting in a studio.

"Ever met [sic] a gin drunk?"

I've never met you.

[Estragon]

Sic? How so?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Maybe be meant “hic”?

[Estragon]

Now THAT is funny!!!

[Bob from Ohio]

Good one.

[Estragon]

Don’t tell me you’re just going to sic and run

[Estragon]

How many gins deep you figure he was when this happened?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=pMrVdFnjEjs

[Sarcastr0]

Elon Musk is attempting to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you mean, like a physical chair in chambers or something?

[tylertusta]

I like freedom of speech.

No, you don't.

[ThePublius]

Good!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wisconsin Supreme Court judges are elected. You can't buy a seat, you have to convince voters to vote for the candidate that you want to fill that seat.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or prevent the other side from doing so.

More like that....

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=149196

"Elon Musk Appears to Be Breaking Wisconsin Law Against Vote Buying in Offering a Chance to Win $1 Million to Anyone Who Voted in Wisconsin Supreme Court Race"

[ThePublius]

What the heck does HHS do that requires 82,000 employees? RFK, Jr. is reducing it by 20,000. I'll bet no one can detect the difference.

[jb]

United Health Group employs 5x that many people.

Amongst other things, HHS administers both Medicare and Medicaid. On first blush, it seems vastly more efficient than the private sector. (I think more rigorous analysis finds it vastly more efficient than private health insurance as well, but I'm just doing a quick comparison between the number of employees of HHS vs. UHG)

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>HHS administers both Medicare and Medicaid

That's the only part of that statement that's true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/

[jb]

It's also true that UHG has 5x as many employees, which at a minimum should give you a sense that HHS isn't oversized compared to private sector analogs.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

The functions and needs of UHG and HHS are not equivalent. Just off the type of my head, HHS probably doesn't do as much marketing & sales as UHG. Nor does HHS have to support compliance staff of meeting the regulatory mandates of agencies like the HHS. How much of HHS's HR needs are handled by other agencies? Like OPM?

I'm not saying there's 5x more functions and needs at UGH. I haven't done the analysis, but intuitively a private corporate most likely has to functions it needs to fulfill than a government agency.

[jb]

That's all fair. My point is just that ThePublius's initial "WhY dO sO mAnY pEoPlE wOrK tHeRe???" is pretty stupid when there's private counterparts that are at least not obviously doing the same job with way less staff.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Well, I agree with that part.

[ThePublius]

There is no private counterpart to HHS. It's unique, and it's a huge, bloated government bureaucracy that has apparently been accountable to no one, and has no notion of 'profitability.' If you delve more into this you will find that its current structure, if you can call it that, is quite Byzantine, composed of myriad fiefdoms that don't openly cooperate with each other. It's time for a change.

[Sarcastr0]

"I've done no work to educate myself in this area, but number seem big.
Now let me predict things."

Yep, this is about the childlike level remaining Trump supporters think at.

[apedad]

You beat me to it.

[M L]

Nothing.

The point is to reach a critical mass of government employees and contractors and others who are financially and culturally invested in increasing government even further so as to create a political perpetual motion machine.

[ThePublius]

HHS is nutty right now.

"To demonstrate how dysfunctional the department was when he (RFK, Jr.) took charge, he revealed that it’s organizational (Org) chart was incomprehensible.”

“There was no chain of command,” he explained, adding that “territorial” and “self-serving” employees were operating in “all these different silos and fiefdoms.”

According to Kennedy, within these silos, officials were “selling patient information to each other.” He told Cuomo that when he tried to obtain Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) depersonalized patient data—which belongs to HHS—”the sub-agency said we have to buy it from them!”

“It doesn’t make any sense. There were sub agencies that wouldn’t give us patient data,” he complained.

Kennedy told Cuomo that HHS has 100 communications departments, 40 procurement departments and “dozens” of IT and human resources units.

“None of them talk to each other,” Kennedy said. “And what we’re trying to do now is to streamline the agency, to eliminate the redundancies and to focus the mission so that everybody at HHS is going to wake up every morning and say, ‘What am I going to do today to make America healthy again?’”

To alleviate fears being drummed up by Democrats and their allies in legacy media, he stressed that they are not going to cut services."

It seems obvious that in eliminating this chaos, one can significantly reduce staff at HHS, while simultaneously making it more efficient.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/28/rfk-jr-unveils-plan-to-transform-hhs-into-maha-powerhouse-were-going-to-do-more-with-less/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=act_eng&seyid=60053

[David Nieporent]

everybody at HHS is going to wake up every morning and say, ‘What am I going to do today to make America healthy again?’”

Feeding RFKJ to an alligator would be a good start.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://nypost.com/2025/03/27/opinion/free-speech-lessons-from-jackass-jasmine-crockett-and-anti-israel-foreign-students/

[rloquitur]

Boasberg seems to have backed off his "I will get to the bottom of this." I guess even he realizes that when you say that there is not much that can be done when the deportees are out of the country and issue a written order that omits the "turn around the flights" statement, you are going to look like a horse's ass if you really push.

[rloquitur]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A931/354225/20250328102104004_24a%20Trump%20v.%20JGG.pdf

The government's brief. Looks like Boasberg screwed up on jurisdiction. Ha ha. What a maroon.

[Frank Drackman]

He does sort of look like David Souter's idiot twin brother

[rloquitur]

https://www.steynonline.com/15149/a-sticky-situation

Some more fun.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I noted how Merrick Garland brought back respectability to the Justice Department. MAGA sorts won't think so. No shock.

The troubling thing is that many on the liberal side don't care. The only thing talked about is how he prosecuted Trump, 1/6, and perhaps oversaw the investigation (by special counsel or whatever) of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden himself.

Obviously, that sort of thing is important, but it is not the only thing the Justice Department is there for. We can see that now, given how the Justice Department is being used and perverted by multiple defense attorneys of Donald Trump.

Merrick Garland was a respected judge and former federal prosecutor. He was cited as an ideal option for Obama to pick for the Supreme Court (until he was). He gave up life tenure for the position since he thought it was his duty, including to serve the country that provided a haven for his family.

He did not go on MSNBC to rail against conservative judges or make trolling statements about members of the opposite party when asked about investigating crimes. His Justice Department was independent (some liberals complain he bent over backwards to avoid politicization) and professional.

When sanity is regained, I hope that side of the Justice Department will return, along with the necessary firmness and strategic decision-making necessary to political criminal situation.

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1

[Frank Drackman]

I know I could Use Algores Google Machine (why don't we call it "Gore-gool" if he invented it?)
but what's with the "+1"?? I know occasionally one of my enlightening genius observations will get a "+1", I get that it's signifying approval, but where did it come from? How about "Ditto!!" "Preach it!" "Word!" or even "I'm Hep Daddy-O!"

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

Joe:

All the replies to your comment are from people I've muted, so I don't have to imagine the lack of substantive, thoughtful, fact-based or serious minded objection.

[Frank Drackman]

You'd have muted Einstein, Dan Queef-a-retta

[rloquitur]

Merrick Garland brought back respectability? Wow.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

They don't live in the same universe as the rest of us. They really don't.

[John F. Carr]

Keep whispering to yourself: "At least Matt Gaetz isn't Attorney General."

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Trump Leaves Presidency To Become Even More Powerful District Court Judge

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>Former Director of the CIA John Brennan “issued the Visas to 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers”
AGAIN: 15 out of the 19 Visas issued to the 9/11 hijackers were issued by the man who would become Director of the CIA
- John Brennan was the CIA daily intelligence

https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1905654377064661072

Do you think that's why Obama promoted him to CIA Director?

````
Look at how fucking crazy DC and Democrats are. Only in Democrat DC Bizarro World can this guy become CIA director (unless there's more than meets the eye, of course)

[David Nieporent]

Editor's note: Former Director of the CIA John Brennan issued visas to 0 of the 19 September 11 hijackers.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

LAWFARE: Nearly every activist federal judge obstructing the president’s agenda has a spouse or child drawing a paycheck from a Democrat-aligned NGO. Trump’s policies have directly undercut these NGOs—creating a glaring conflict of interest.

https://x.com/amuse/status/1905532825660502074

What a coincidence...

[rloquitur]

Wonder if MSM will cover that. I think it's up to Karoline Leavitt to publicize it!!

[not guilty]

"LAWFARE: Nearly every activist federal judge obstructing the president’s agenda has a spouse or child drawing a paycheck from a Democrat-aligned NGO. Trump’s policies have directly undercut these NGOs—creating a glaring conflict of interest."

Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2 (or any other commenter who has kvetched about the employment of a judge's adult offspring posing a conflict), should Justice Scalia have recused himself in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), because his son was a partner in the law firm representing the petitioner?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Well to make it apples to apples comparison:

If Scalia was deciding a case before him, whose outcome directly impacted the financial outcomes of his son or daughter, then yes Scalia should recuse.

[not guilty]

Eugene Scalia was a freaking partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Do you doubt for a moment that that firm benefited substantially from having represented His Accidency, the President of the United States? Do you doubt that the younger Scalia's partnership became more valuable as a result of the law firm's success?

If Justice Scalia had recused, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida would have been affirmed by an equally divided SCOTUS, and history might have turned out quite differently. (Of course, Bush might have won the Florida recount if it had been successfully completed.)

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

What two things still aren't the same?
"whose outcome directly impacted the financial outcomes of his son"

vs.

"Do you doubt for a moment that that firm benefited substantially from having represented His Accidency, the President of the United States?"

"his son" "that firm". Do you know the difference between the two?

[Voize of Reazon]

Magnus, you're right they aren't the same.

Those judges' spouse or child were employees of a company that benefit.

Eugene Scalia was a co-owner of a company that benefit.

His conflict was worse.

[David Nieporent]

Another fake twitter account. If our resident Nazi would get his news from real news sources, he might not even be a Nazi.

[ThePublius]

The de-industrialization of the West continues apace:

"British Steel has announced plans to close its two blast furnaces in Scunthorpe, making Britain the only G7 country unable to manufacture its own steel.

Jingye, the Chinese steel group that owns the plant, blamed Donald Trump as it announced plans to shut key operations, putting up to 2,700 jobs at risk. It said the “imposition of tariffs” had made the blast furnaces and steel making operations “no longer financially sustainable”. The closures signal the end of steel production in the UK after more than 150 years."

Yes, Trump's fault. Here's the problem. British Steel selling itself to a Chinese company. Steel, especially new steel making (which requires blast furnaces) is a strategic capability. This should be owned and controlled by Britain, or British companies, not a potential WWIII foe. So stupid.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, Trump's fault.

Do you have a more plausible explanation?

[ThePublius]

Well, how about that this is a convenient excuse for China to shut down Britain's blast furnaces so the U.K. will have to take its steel from China? It wouldn't be the first time that a company was acquired to shut it down and eliminate competition, or increase markets.

Are you arguing that the U.S. is the only market for British Steel? Are you arguing that an increase in tariffs on steel exported to the U.S. wrecks their business model? If so, so be it. But it's not Trump's fault that they don't have a sustainable business model or sustainable markets.

The U.S. has 12 operating blast furnaces. China has 557. [1] If we take the China threat seriously we have to make steel, and build ships and other steel-intense items. We're not going to do this importing steel from the U.K.'s 2 blast furnaces. We have to increase our industrial capacity, and tariffs are an excellent way, perhaps the only way, to spur this development.

[1] https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-iron-and-steel-tracker/

[apedad]

I know!

Let's piss off our allies.

[ThePublius]

The U.K. is more a parasite than an ally, and has been so for almost 100 years.

[Sarcastr0]

What kind of pro Axis bullshit is this?

[Frank Drackman]

Which Army burned the White House?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, how about that this is a convenient excuse for China to shut down Britain's blast furnaces so the U.K. will have to take its steel from China?

Why would they need an excuse?

We have to increase our industrial capacity, and tariffs are an excellent way, perhaps the only way, to spur this development.

Putting a new tax on the American people is not, in point, a good way to improve our industrial capacity.

[ThePublius]

It's not a tax on the American people. Sure, some things may increase in price, but I'm fine with that if it means investment in strategic industrial capacity increases. And, by the way, multiple foreign car companies are investing in U.S. plants due to the tariffs, which means more good jobs.

How would you increase industrial capacity?

[Noscitur a sociis]

It's not a tax on the American people. Sure, some things may increase in price,

Oof, ThePublius. Distinctly oof.

How would you increase industrial capacity?

I trust the free market. But even if you prefer central planning, it’s still better to just do it outright.

[ThePublius]

What's a tax? Was killing all those chickens under the Biden administration a tax? Is inflation due to printing tons of money a tax?

[ThePublius]

There's no free market. China has been dumping steel internationally for a long time. And, environmental regulations and environmentalist groups in the U.S. (heavily subsidized by China) have made building new plants almost impossible.

[Sarcastr0]

No free market? Nationalize the steel mills!

[ThePublius]

Oh, that's a great idea! /sarc

[Sarcastr0]

Yes that is my point.

[David Nieporent]

How would you increase industrial capacity?

Our industrial output is at all-time highs already.

[jb]

I don't even disagree that steel making is a strategic capability that countries probably want to ensure they can do for themselves.

Also, using the Trump tariffs as an excuse does seem a bit pretextual since it seems like US exports only represents about 5% of their production. On the other hand, the whole operation is already losing money so losing 5% of your revenue is probably not great for business.

Having said all of that, putting tariffs like this on our theoretical allies seems pretty harmful in making sure that we all can maintain important industrial capacity. The US would be better off if the UK could still produce its own steel. Putting tariffs on Chinese steel and propping up the US steel industry makes sense; treating the UK and China the same seems stupid.

[ThePublius]

The U.K. hasn't made new steel since 2022, when they sold British Steel to Jingye, at which point all the new steel coming from British-based steel plants was Chinese steel. The U.S. had nothing to do with that decision or transaction.

[jb]

You seem to have changed your tune from a few posts ago: "Well, how about that this is a convenient excuse for China to shut down Britain's blast furnaces so the U.K. will have to take its steel from China?"

But sure, the UK probably should have stopped that from happening. Maybe they needed their own tariffs or to be willing to subsidize domestic production directly.

[ThePublius]

There's nothing inconsistent among those two posts.

[Absaroka]

"The U.S. has 12 operating blast furnaces. China has 557"

Indeed, and something I have been pointing out for years. In the position we're in, we need to be very careful to cultivate allies.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, the CCP wants to eliminate Western military capacity and cohesion.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can these plants be operated profitably with the new tariffs? If so, it is seems like a pretty bad plan by the Chinese.

[ThePublius]

I don't recall where I saw it, but it's my understanding this plant hasn't been profitable for years.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>Jingye, the Chinese steel group that owns the plant, blamed Donald Trump as it announced plans to shut key operations,

Interesting to see you so cavalierly taking the CCP's stance on this. Maybe there's more here than you're considering?

Also, the real people to blame are the absolutely idiots who let China buy a strategic ability like that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Maybe there's more here than you're considering?

Like… what?

“Business says it’s shutting down because it’s not profitable right after costs rise” seems like a pretty plausible story. If you think there’s something else going on, why not explain?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Noscitur,

How can US tariffs shutter a UK Chinese steel manufacturer when the US doesn't import UK steel?

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/where-does-us-get-its-steel-aluminum-2025-02-10/

So this Chinese company is shuttering a UK business that doesn't depend upon the US and blaming Trump's tariffs. Geopolitically, can you even speculate why China might do that?

[hobie]

Last week I pointed out to you MAGA that US steel prices had moved up 25% since January for absolutely no reason other than profiteering. Basically, US steel prices are the same as foreign. But since the orange genius upped foreign by 25%, domestic raised theirs equally just because they can. Domestic makes a ton of free money, consumers eat the cost.

Today Trump said (he's always learning, give him time) that if domestic automotive does the same because of his auto tariffs (which they will) he will punish our domestics. Like all MAGA, you don't know who to hate or how the economy really works. You just want liberal tears. But please, hayseeds, continue. Eggs are about to be the least of your worries

[rloquitur]

https://nypost.com/2025/03/28/us-news/mahmoud-khalil-to-remain-in-louisiana-ice-facility-as-judge-refuses-to-free-him-at-court-hearing-attended-by-wife/

Mahmoud stays in detention.

[not guilty]

I don't think that Mr. Khalid is challenging his confinement, only his detention. At least that is what the lead opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals indicates.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

That Ford guy up in Ontario has publicly threatened the American citizen and says he's going to inflict as much pain on American citizens as possible.

```
How should a country react to a threat from a foreign government to harm it's citizens? Should they applaud and welcome it like many Democrats are doing?

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>The only team member to speak on the record is Gary Berntsen, among the most highly decorated CIA veterans in recent history. I spoke with Berntsen after the article was published. He confirmed that Tren de Aragua was purposely sent to the United States to destabilize our country.

>Berntsen said, “The Venezuelan regime has assumed operational control of TdA and has trained 300 of them; they have given them paramilitary training, training them to fire weapons, how to conduct sabotage, in a four- to six-week course. Then they deployed them into the United States to 20 separate states.”

https://x.com/bmarcois/status/1905313552165904775

Judge Boasburg is giving aid and comfort to foreign militants operating clandestinely in our country. Do you think that's why he is so demanding of them coming back and being released in the interior?

Does his other daughter work for some Venezualian NGO (which is also probably funded by USAID)?

This definitely puts a new twist on why the Democrats were so vehemently trying to pretend the TdA was taking over those apartment complexes.

[ThePublius]

"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement partners have arrested 370 “alien offenders” during an “enhanced operation” in Massachusetts, including a man in New Bedford, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigations."

These are not nice, hardworking people seeking a better life in the U.S. They are not among those illegal immigrants who the left claims commit fewer crimes, statistically, than U.S. citizens.

I'm glad Homa and ICE are cleaning up things.

"The FBI reported that 205 of those arrested “had significant criminal convictions or charges,” and that “six were foreign fugitives currently facing charges or convictions for murder, drug trafficking, organized crime, and money laundering.”

Also seized was approximately 44 kilograms of methamphetamines, five kilograms of fentanyl, 1.2 kilograms of cocaine, three firearms and ammunition.

In New Bedford, a man from Guatemala who had been charged with rape and convicted of enticing a minor under the age of 16 was arrested. The FBI said he had been released by New Bedford District Court without the ICE detainer being honored.

Others arrested across Massachusetts included Dominican aliens with drug crimes and another with homicide in his native country; a Chilean alien convicted of four counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14; and a Honduran alien who illegally entered the U.S. after removal who had been convicted of rape of a child, assault and battery on a person over 14 and failure to register as a sex offender.

A Russian alien charged with unlawful possession of ammunition and wanted in his native country for armed robber and membership in a criminal organization was also arrested, as was a Salvadoran alien who had been previously deported and a documented member of the 18th Street gang, convicted of assault and battery and sentenced to two and a half years; and a Jamaican alien previously deported from the U.S. who had been convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, armed robbery, possession of a firearm and assault.

A number of Brazilian aliens were also arrested, including one charged with manslaughter, homicide by a motor vehicle, homicide while under the influence of liquor, breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a crime, and larceny.

Two other Brazilians were also wanted for murder, another wanted in his native country for failure to serve a sentence after being convicted of murder, and one wanted in his native country for drug trafficking, money laundering and membership in a criminal organization."

Read More: ICE Arrests 370 'Alien Offenders,' Including One in New Bedford | https://wbsm.com/ice-new-bedford-alien-offenders-arrested/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

[Frank Drackman]

What do you expect? this is a State who for almost 50 years kept re-erecting a Senator who left a young woman to Asphyxiate (not Drown, there's a difference) I hope Buddhism's correct and in her next life Mayor Wu ends up as a "Comfort Woman" for the Japanese Army. Who ever runs against her should to a CGI "Abbot & Costello" bit,
"Who let in all the illegal rapists, murderers, drug dealers?
"Wu"
"Who?"
"Not Who, Wu"
"That's what I'm asking you, Who?"
"I'm telling you, "Wu"!'
"Who's Wu?"
"You don't know Who Wu is?"
"Who doesn't do wu Who is?
"What?"
"No, that's her Vice Mayor"
"Third Base!"

[Commenter_XY]

Tom Homan talks the good game, but he is more like a money dribble than a money shot, at this point. In a good week, we deport 5K people. We need to be deporting 5K people every day. For 3 years.

I'm glad for what has been accomplished, but less than completely satisfied with tangible result.

[ThePublius]

"We need to be deporting 5K people every day."

Tell that to the judges.

[David Nieporent]

We need to be deporting 5K people every day. For 3 years.

Sounds great. As long as they're all Trump supporters.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump just loves to (mis)use the pardon power.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-offers-problematic-defense-latest-controversial-pardon-rcna198622

[ThePublius]

Maddow? Kidding?

[Sarcastr0]

It is a video of Trump talking, chief.

[M L]

Oh how the turns have tabled.

[SRG2]

It's obviously corrupt and hence no surprise. Nor is the cultist deflection.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

A very nice banjo duet composed and performed by comedian Steve Martin and one of today's truly great banjo players Alison Brown. Neither is a hick, hayseed, or hillbilly. Brown, indeed, is a Harvard graduate and former employee of Smith Barney.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFMX4t4FHsc&ab_channel=AlisonBrown

Particularly noteworthy, I think, is the combination of Martin's claw hammer style with Brown's three-finger Scruggs style. Very good instrumental accompaniment, too, including Sierra Hull and Chris Eldridge.

[Paladin_44]

The call and response action is really good. Brown and Martin make a great duo.

[M L]

Thanks. I don't see any of 'em playing like this though.

Something a little different:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBZFGArshiE

[Life of Brian]

Damn.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Amazing. And quite musical, too, I think.

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Today's Friday, so why not another.

Four of the best women playing bluegrass today: Molly Tuttle, Alison Brown, Missy Raines, and Kimber Ludiker. If you ever encounter someone who wants to know the difference between violin and fiddle, explain that it's not the instrument but the player and point them to this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfyhhqghvoE&ab_channel=D%27AddarioandCo.

Tuttle on guitar is excellent in this video and her right hand brilliance is on display, Overall, though, her playing is a bit restrained. There or other videos of her playing this tune that show her more flashy side.

The young lady on the second banjo is Uma Peters who was probably 10 or 11 at the time of this recording. She is now, best as I can tell, a high school senior playing basketball at University School of Nashville. She is a 5'3" guard who can make a whole bunch of three-pointers. Has committed to Illinois Tech.

The song in this video is "White Freightliner Blues" written by Townes Van Zandt. It appeared on his album "Live at the Old Quarter" which was recorded in the early 70s and released in 77. It has become, in recent years, something of a bluegrass standard.

[Estragon]

Excellent, thank you!

[John F. Carr]

A few months ago YouTube decided I needed to see Molly Tuttle and her band performing "White Rabbit" in appropriate costumes. YouTube was right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeHlvXvG6vA

[Frank Drackman]

That was F-in (keeping in clean EV) awesome, why can't other "Conspirators" (Conspiring to do what? bore me to death?) post anything that good? Makes me want to drop some Mescaline (is that how you say it? "Drop some Mescaline?" right now) Well done Sir!

Frank

[Bwaaah]

OK. Only because YouTube decided that one for you, I'll give you one that YouTube decided for me. It's funky. It's boppy. It got stuck in my head:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRHQPG1xd9o

[MusicAfter Midnight]

I like things like that -- music performed well by people who are not pop music idols. Songs that are not computer enhanced and auto-tuned. Music performed by real people who do it for the love of the music and the love of the performance.

[Bwaaah]

MAM...I'm only reading your post after I posted the next one, and it's spot on.

[Bwaaah]

And since I'm blaming YouTube for that one, I'll blame it for this one too. It's some kind of meth-head junkie band does Minnie the Moocher, and it's aces:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3AHqcinzZ4

[Bwaaah]

(No insult to band intended)

[Bwaaah]

Some sweet tight bluegrass here from people I never heard of, ht to YouTube. (I save these things to a playlist because I know I'll never come upon them again.)

Fox on the Run by the Backwoods Bluegrass Band
https://youtu.be/59fPdZj6HzM?list=PLO65J9pRuQhR-jq6k2_4Hs0fGij9DNHrp

[Bwaaah]

And slown' it down for y'all, it's a cover of Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd, a la a couple of orthodox Jews somewhere in Israel, The Gat Brothers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPHI3d7pJEo

I don't make this shit up. The algorithm ain't all bad.

[Bwaaah]

In case any of yous don't know what Frankie Drackman does when he comes out of the shower, here's the man doin' his thing like the thing's got to be done...

https://youtu.be/3vBwRfQbXkg?list=PLO65J9pRuQhR-jq6k2_4Hs0fGij9DNHrp

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Jeez, that sure is something. Musically pretty good and funny as hell to boot.

Ok, so long as we're doing this.

I've been a Leon Russell fan for about 50 years and his record "Carney" has always been my favorite. Well, obviously, not always, but always since I first heard it back in the 70s. There are some great songs on that record including the beautiful and, for 70s rock, quite sophisticated "Masquerade." My favorite on the record is "Manhattan Island Serenade" which I find poignant and beautiful in it's uncluttered arrangement. I recently found this cover version by someone I'd never heard of. I've always enjoyed Russell's piano playing but think that this guy's take on this tune is really nice, particularly the break. The added bass (I don't think Russell's recording had one) works well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcQYRJxus2M&ab_channel=ONEONONE

[Bwaaah]

That's a beautiful rendition.

It reminds me of something somebody once said:
"I like things like that -- music performed well by people who are not pop music idols. Songs that are not computer enhanced and auto-tuned. Music performed by real people who do it for the love of the music and the love of the performance."
🙂

You happen upon it, some really attentive nobodies doing their thing, and all the magic of music comes out of nowhere. It is, as you say, beautiful, and uncluttered.

Your inspired words remind me of this next tune, which YouTube threw at me out of nowhere, and it strikes me just the way you say. It's a poppy tune: "MMMBop" by Hanson, done by a group called Scary Pockets, which seems to be a cover group that brings in an endless lineup of great amateur singers to lead the away. Here it is:

https://youtu.be/fiShsfvbFUA

And if you can take another great poppy tune like that from Scary Pockets, this guy owns this tune and the screen with the Backstreet Boys' "I Want It That Way,"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZAJMBFq85s

Cheers!

[MusicAfter Midnight]

Yes, the "White Rabbit" video is a good one.

I'm not sure how I first learned of Tuttle. it was about four or five years ago and it might have been because of "White Freightliner." She has several versions. I've been a Townes Van Zandt fan for years and years and she may have been recommended to me by youtube because of that. Anyway, it only took one exposure to her playing to make me a fan. She is an extraordinary talent and an interesting person, too.

[TaioF920]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/28/judge-orders-cfpb-to-reinstate-fired-employees-preserve-records-and-get-back-to-work.html

Why is Amy Berman Jackson "I'm a leftist Jewish woman who had sex with a black man" allowed to hear Trump cases, given her bias?

[Estragon]

How many handles do you think you’ve had at this point, voltage guy? Ever consider a different hobby? Don’t bother responding— I’m boxing this one now. I await your next iteration.

[Absaroka]

CoyoteBlog has a great post titled The Madness of Tariffs -- Aluminum Example.

Now, I'm open to the argument that there are strategic things we need to be able to do in-house, regardless of cost. If pinch comes to shove we can do without aluminum beer cans, but not wing spars, so maybe we want to be able to make sure we can make wing spars domestically, start to finish. Fair enough, but:

"No one in their right mind is going to invest based on the promise of tariffs that Trump himself changes almost daily and that will likely be politically undone long before any new plant is paid for, or even built."

The economic lifetime of an aluminum factory is, I dunno, 20 years? 40 years? If you think it is important to have them domestically, then you need to A)build a national consensus around that and B)come up with a long term funding model (long term contracts, government owned smelter, ???) that will support multi decade investments. Here today, gone tomorrow tariffs aren't going to get the result you want.

(as an aside, cultivating a next door neighbor as an ally might be smart, too)

[Brett Bellmore]

It would be smart. Somebody suggest that to Canada.

[Sarcastr0]

Infrastructure grants are another thing this administration is cancelling.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Oh no! How will we defend ourselves if that $100B one-mile highspeed rail doesn't get to two-miles in 2040?!?!?!

Won't someone please think of the infrastructure?!?!

[Bwaaah]

Great [brief] article there about aluminum production.

I think the paradigm of domestic independence in production is obsolete. The advantages of [global] international optimization are way too great, and are already integrated into pretty much all production and products. As if Milton Friedman's exposé about the pencil didn't sufficiently elucidate the issue, the global integration and necessity of semiconductors embodies the problem, and benefits, at an almost unfathomable scale.

Need to sustain a war? Keep a healthy stockpile of weapons and parts inventories. China is the only country that can conceive of production hegemony, and even there, that concept is dubious and self-destructive. To survive, they need oil imports and food imports too at huge scale, and despite their large array of exports, their supply chains are also heavily dependent on global imports at all levels.

I think the most important hedge is our naval strength...our ability to assure global transit, and if necessary in a time of war, choke oil supplies wherever necessary. That should be an adequate threat to any party that would threaten the global supply chain.

Otherwise, we're already all in this together, and attempts to unwind that are regressive. We can't re-insource the environmental problems we've outsourced; we can't tolerate them nor mitigate their risks at an economical scale. We'll never be able to afford to have the ways we now live, the ways we like to live, produced domestically.

Trump's tariffs may be useful in some measure as a negotiating stick (they always have been), but in general are thoroughly regressive. And as you intimate, strong integration with good neighbors can be a great strategic advantage. But more to your point, I think, is the almost instantly diminished value of an America that is an undependable, unpredictable part of the global supply chain, especially given the years-in-advance planning and investment necessary to build almost anything of significance at scale.

What global partner will invest any more in the U.S. than the President himself extracts as the toll of survival? His insight and reach will be no better than any central economic planner was in the past.

Will the U.S. be a dependable global trading partner in the future?How long will it take for the rest of the producing world to know whether isolationist, regressive Trumpist economics will be a staying trend in the U.S.? Midterm elections? 2028 elections? Beyond?

Despite the best of intentions, we're shitting our proverbial beds.

[Absaroka]

Great post, and I 99% agree, but I'll quibble here: "I think the paradigm of domestic independence in production is obsolete".

I don't care about anything non-essential; if we have zero domestic capability for producing beanie babies or chocolate, so be it: we can exist without those (whether life without chocolate is worth living is another question). But for things that are hard to live without - munitions, chips, antibiotics - I think it is very important to have a *reliable* supply. That doesn't have to be domestic - there is nothing wrong with being dependent on Canadian aluminum unless we go out of our way to piss them off (cough...). But I'd hate to have, I dunno, a typhoon or revolution in India cut off our only source of insulin, and you don't want to end up where Europe was/is relative to Russian gas and oil.

And of course, this isn't just a domestic/import thing: IIRC the last hurricane that pasted Puerto Rico had folks wondering about a number of drugs because something in the tax code caused a large part of out pharma production to be concentrated there. We have built a JIT world that is as fragile as it is efficient. That's great for beanie babies but not where you want to be for essentials.

[Bwaaah]

I agree with all of your points (except for your doubts about whether life is worth living without chocolate 🙂 ).

[SRG2]

More Greenland bullshit:

Vance scolds Denmark during Greenland trip

Thus Vance: We hope that they choose to partner with the United States, because we're the only nation on Earth that will respect their sovereignty

And the cultists cheer.

I note yet again the reason that Greenland and the surrounding waterways are opening up is because of global warming, which the Krasnov regime and therefore the cultists deny.

[SRG2]

Link stripped somehow: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr525e49m2do

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

What are you personally sacrificing to save the planet from global warming?

Anything?

[SRG2]

I have changed my habits - whether than constitutes sacrifice doesn't really matter. More careful about energy use, for example.

But even if I were not, that would merely establish me as a hypocrite and would say nothing about the reality of global warming.

Perhaps you'd care to respond to the point that the regime opposes climate change while having a position on Greenland that makes sense only if it's happening.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

So very little.

You believe humanity is facing extinction, and you're doing very little if anything about it.

You're not a hypocrite, you're a sociopath.

>Perhaps you'd care to respond to the point that the regime opposes climate change while having a position on Greenland that makes sense only if it's happening.

Also, that's absurd and demonstrates little you know of what's going on in the Arctic. The USA believes Greenland has strategic importance because of the proximity to the untapped resources under the ice of the Arctic. So does the rest of the world.. well except for low-level Democrats. It has nothing to with climate change. Even back in WW2 there was strategic importance, we lost 1000 soldiers sailing to Greenland to protect it from the Germans.

[Magister]

I do practice energy conservation in various ways. Also, I installed solar panels; the cost far exceeded the tax benefit I received, and the expected return on investment is pretty far in the future. But generally a response to global warming will require collective action.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Do you believe humankind is facing extinction from global warming?

[Magister]

I don't believe that climate change will make humans extinct. It will be unpleasant and probably kill a lot of people if we do nothing.

But wait, we should only do things about threats that would make humans extinct? I guess then you think we don't need to do anything about most problems. Transwomen competing in women's sports? Not an extinction threat. Haitian immigrants eating pets? Not an extinction threat. Inflation? Not an extinction threat. Ebola, measles, antibiotic resistant bacteria? Not an extinction threat. Putting an irresponsible, mentally ill criminal in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal? OK, so what are you doing about that one?

[ThePublius]

Just as the left conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration in trying to make their arguments, they also conflate anthropogenic global warming with 'natural' global warming, and call all of those who are skeptical about the former 'denialists,' simultaneously invoking holocaust denial.

I have no doubt that the earth is warming, coming out of the last glaciation. Did you know that in Roman Empire times there were vineyards in Greenland? This climate cycles, but now its in an inexorable warming trend.

I think that man's activity has near zero effect on this warming, and further, that there is nothing we can do about - nothing U.S. or any other western person or government can do about - except tax us for it. Look, China and India are building coal-fired powerplants to beat the band! If you think that 'changing your energy habits' has any effect, you are delusional.

Regarding Vance, he's right. Denmark has neglected Greenland's infrastructure. They supply a lot of money to Greenland, as we would have to if Greenland decided to become aligned with the U.S., but you can bet that if that happened and Trump or another conservative president was in office, we would at least build up (or restore) military bases there, creating jobs and injecting wealth into the island.

[SRG2]

Just as the left conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration in trying to make their arguments, they also conflate anthropogenic global warming with 'natural' global warming, and call all of those who are skeptical about the former 'denialists,'

I cannot answer for the left, not being a leftist, except in the new MAGA definition, as anyone who doesn't support Dear Leader.

There is no current scientific climate model that attributes current warming purely to natural causes.

For a long time, anti-science people like yourself denied that climate change was happening at all - and some of the more ignorant of your cohort still do deny it. More recently, now that some of the more intelligent amongst you have realised that the data do indeed support climate change, they change their tune to, "it's natural" (though seldom identifying what that natural cause is). A few have switched to the line, "okay, it is human caused but it will be a good thing". But none of you ever manage to explain what was wrong with Arrhenius's hypothesis in the first place, providing no mechanism whereby increasing CO2 levels will not cause climate change.

And I fully expect that when finally most of you concede it's happening and is human cause, you will blame the scientific community for being insufficiently persuasive.

I think that man's activity has near zero effect on this warming,

What is the scientific basis for your belief?

[ThePublius]

Short answer, I'm not anti-science, I'm a scientist and engineer, and I've done a lot of research on this, and have done the math.

Even if you are right, that it's man caused, your actions, and the U.S.'s actions do nothing, because of China and India.

[SRG2]

Short answer, I'm not anti-science, I'm a scientist and engineer, and I've done a lot of research on this, and have done the math.</i<

What is your scientific discipline and what "math" have you done?

and the U.S.'s actions do nothing, because of China and India.

So make it worse because we can't make it better. Gottit. The thought of working with the Chinese and Indians clearly won't work in the long term because there's no money in it for the regime,

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>There is no current scientific climate model that attributes current warming purely to natural causes.

I love this Scientism. Can you recall what happens to scientists who publish papers that indicate that?

You guys always do pull this nonsense on this fake consensus. Your sicko kind bullies a consensus just like they are doing now with Tesla and call that "science".

Science allows uncomfortable questions and even uncomfortable answers.

Scientism forbids non-approved outcomes, and severely punishes even pursuing it.

[ThePublius]

You know, your post deserves a thorough fisking, as you say a lot of things that just aren't so about other people, what they think and believe, and so on; alas, I don't have time now. Maybe later.

[SRG2]

Denmark has neglected Greenland's infrastructure.

Quite possibly. This does not give the regime the right to seize it.

And after all, the US government has neglected the US's infrastructure.

Do you at least agree that the US has no right to seize Greenland if Denmark or Greenland does not want it to?

[ThePublius]

That's a good question, and one about which I'm on the fence. Not now. But if things really heated up with China or Russia in the arctic, and Denmark and/or Greenland became uncooperative, and we really thought it was imperative for U.S. national defense - then yes.

I think it's less important that Denmark does not want us to, than it is what Greenland wants. If we promised a guaranteed income to Greenlanders, kind of like how Alaskans get stipends for oil revenue, then I think it could work. And, it would be relatively cheap. And, jobs at U.S. military bases, mining industries, related hospitals and other services, it could be a boon for Greenlanders.

[SRG2]

Note that I didn't ask, should the US seize Greenland - which you answered yes, but has the US the right to do so. The two are not the same

[ThePublius]

I don't know. "The right" in what context? What do you think?

[SRG2]

In neither customary or codified international law has the US the right to invade and seize part of another country absent a casus belli?

The answer is no. And fwiw It's a crime against peace.

Even to give the order should result in impeachment - which it won't, of course.

Can you think of any time in history where the country that invaded a peaceful ally and tried to seize it was the good guy? But I can certainly provide names of leaders who ordered such invasions and it is such a list that even to support someone whose name would go onto that list is a strongly adverse indication of their character. Would you like to be known as someone who supported, say, Stalin, or Mao, or Nasser or Hussain or Putin?

[Noscitur a sociis]

kind of like how Alaskans get stipends for oil revenue

Alaskans do not get stipends for oil revenues.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Look up Alaska Permanent Fund. Pretty sure the money in the fund comes from oil revenue.

[ThePublius]

Thank you.

[ThePublius]

"Alaskans do not get stipends for oil revenues."

Yes, they do! Do you just reflexively disagree with everything I say?

"Yes, Alaskans receive an annual dividend, known as the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), from investment earnings of mineral royalties, which are derived from the state's oil and gas reserves."

"As of 2019, the fund was worth approximately $64 billion that has been funded by oil and mining revenues and has paid out an average of approximately $1,600 annually per resident (adjusted to 2019 dollars)."

per wikipedia

Now, let's see if you admit you were wrong. I doubt it....

[SRG2]

What Happens When the Government Starts Reporting ‘Alternative Facts’?

Pointing out among other things how the regime is removing data - either concealing it or simply getting rid of the people who produce it.

[ThePublius]

You know, I clicked on the link and started reading. I couldn't get past the second paragraph. This person is so virulently anti-Trump, I mean, foaming at the mouth anti-Trump, that she can't be taken seriously. Why do you consumer this nonsense?

[Magister]

1984 has come to the US federal government. It's worth reading for the factual assertions about the government statistics, studies and documents that have been altered, replaced or suppressed.

[SRG2]

Yes, but any criticism of Dear Leader is definitionally wrong, and may even lead to a legitimate diagnosis of creeping schizophrenia.

[Bwaaah]

This one's so good that I can't just leave it lost in the great above.

In case any of yous don't know what Frankie Drackman does when he comes out of the shower, here's the man doin' his thing like the thing's got to be done...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vBwRfQbXkg

[SRG2]

Presumably, when Frank Drackman dies, he'll be defunked.

[Bwaaah]

Defunk that, and there'll be nothin' left.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

>Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong: “we have to face reality”
“For the first time in my career, I’ve seen an 8-year old, 9-year old, 10-year old with colon cancer [and] for the first time in my career, I’ve had a 13-year old child in our clinic d*e of metastatic pancreatic cancer”

Thank you Branch Covidians, Biden, Fauci, and all the wealthy Sarcastr0's at the CDC! Fuck the kids, at least you got to shut down the whole world and try and force people to do your bidding (as a dry run for your utopia, natch).

[ThePublius]

1984 has come to the U.K.

"Parents in Hertfordshire have been arrested and locked in a cell for criticising the policies of their daughter’s school in emails and a What’s App group.

By this point, anyone claiming that free speech is intact in the UK is utterly delusional."

https://x.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1905757858958098759

The U.K. has become shit.

[Magister]

Somebody has never actually read 1984.

[ThePublius]

Get lost, I have too!

[Magister]

If nobody's screaming "Do it to Julia!" and nobody's destroying historical documents (hmm, like any government document that includes the words forbidden in Trumpian Newspeak) then it's not 1984.

[ThePublius]

Oh, so you are the arbiter of what is 1984? And you somehow drag Trump into this?

[Magister]

There's a discussion of using certain words metaphorically that ends up cheapening them up near the top of this thread. The reported story bears almost no resemblance to 1984. It's kinda like Godwin's law; you can hate opposite side parking or library fines or whatever with the burning intensity of a supenova, but it's still not Hitler. And this is not 1984. Rewriting history and declaring certain law firms as "unpersons" for federal purposes and forbidding federal workers the use of certain words is much more 1984, so I'm going to point out that the Trump administration is much closer to 1984 than police overreacting and then backing off.

[ThePublius]

Once you went to "but Trump" you lost all credibility. This isn't about Trump. It's about UK police literally jailing people for wrong speak.

[Magister]

The analogy to 1984 fails with regard to police detaining someone on suspicion of criminal offenses and then releasing them. It's a more appropriate analogy with the Trump administration.

[ThePublius]

German police will lose their jobs if they join AfD. The establishment left in Germany has gone full fascist.

[Magister]

Germany has a greater historical awareness of going fascist than other countries. Has any German policeman lost his job for joining AfD? Compare the case of Joshua Doggrell in the US.

[ThePublius]

This is brand new. We'll see.