Tag: law

Antifa = Alt Left

In one fell swoop, the God-Emperor changed the rhetorical game:

“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at, as you say, the ‘alt-right’? Do they have any semblance of guilt?” Trump said. “They came charging with clubs in their hands,” he said of the counter-protesters.
Trump effectively reopened the debate, despite insistence from politicians in both parties that white supremacists and other racists deserved to be singled out.
“You had a group on one side that was mad, and you had a group on the other side that was violent. Nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say that,” he said.
Trump defended the cause of those who gathered to protest the removal of a statue honoring Gen. Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy.
“Was George Washington a slave owner. So will George Washington lose his status?” he said. “What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? Do you like him? … You’re changing history. You’re changing culture.”
While Trump condemned the driver who rammed the crowd and killed a counter-protester, he declined to label the action specifically as an act of terrorism.

That’s the power of the bully pulpit. And that’s the work of a master of rhetoric in action. Trump is right to decline to label the action of the driver as terrorism, because the chances are extremely good that he’s never going to face trial.
This is not the first time someone has run over and killed protesters blocking the road. In previous cases, the drivers were found not guilty of any wrongdoing. No doubt the video of masked antifas smashing the car with metal bars is going to go a long way towards exculpating the killer driver.

It starts with one

“We’ve seen a lot more mistakes lately than rebounds. Its time to go on a domestic policy winning streak.”
– Nate

Ask and ye shall receive.

Speaking from the Roosevelt Room at the White House Wednesday morning, President Trump expressed support for the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act, RAISE, in an effort to shift America’s immigration system away from low-skilled labor to one based on merit and skills. If passed, the legislation would represent the largest overhaul of the U.S. immigration system since the 1960s.

“Struggling American families deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first,” the President said. “The RAISE Act ends chain migration and replaces our low-skilled system with a new points-based system.”

“The green card reforms in the RAISE Act will give American workers a pay raise by reducing unskilled immigration,” he continued.

The President, standing with Republican Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue, argued the influx of low-skilled immigrants has greatly disadvantaged working class Americans by depressing wages and eliminating jobs.

“We’re not committed to working class Americans and we need to change that,” Senator Tom Cotton, a co-author of the legislation, said. “We bring over a million immigrants into this country a year. That’s like adding the population of Montana.”

“Our current system  is over a half-century old. It is an obsolete disaster,” he continued.

The legislation significantly limits legal immigration, by 15 percent, and favors immigrants who have strong English language abilities. It prioritizes immigrants who have high skills to benefit the American economy and reduces eligibility for immigrants to receive welfare.

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare,” the President said.

Is it a perfect plan? No. Is it everything that is so desperately needed? Also no. But anything that upsets the mainstream media this much is definitely on the right track. And the shift from discussing illegal immigration to reducing legal immigration is a vital one; the problem has never been the “illegal” aspect as so many cucks and cons had it, but the “immigration” aspect.

It’s not certain that shutting down all immigration and deporting 30 million people would be sufficient to prevent the breakup of the United States, so obviously the RAISE Act will not be enough either. But the voyage of a thousand leagues begins with a single step; it took 50 years to break US demographics so the problem is not going to be fixed overnight either.

Now, it would be nice if the God-Emperor would follow up this announcement with something related to the fact that he is going to BUILD THE WALL.

Why Trump is unhappy with Sessions

Andrew Napolitano explains that the former Senator is essentially too much of a pussy senatorially collegial to take on the swamp:

During the past two weeks, President Donald Trump has made no secret of his unhappiness at the management of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Actually, Trump seems most agitated at the growing parts of the DOJ that are not under Sessions’ management.

He is also angry that the trail of the well-known evidence of the crimes of his former opponent Hillary Clinton seems to have been vacated by the DOJ.

How is it that parts of the DOJ cannot be controlled by the attorney general, whom Trump appointed to run the DOJ? And with a mountain of evidence of Clinton’s espionage — her failure to safeguard state secrets, crimes far more treacherous than those alleged against Trump’s campaign — why has she not been prosecuted?

It doesn’t help that Sessions is also wandering around looking like a senile old dinosaur babbling about the drug war when literally no one gives a damn about outlawing drugs anymore, in part because pot is increasingly legal and half the millennials have been on speed or psychotropics all their lives.

AIPAC vs 1st Amendment

In case you didn’t believe that immigrants have never, ever, understood literally the first goddamn thing about the Rights of Englishmen or the U.S. Constitution. Note that limiting the 1st Amendment rights of Americans is AIPAC’s top legislative priority for 2017. Everything below is straight from Congress.gov.


S.720 – Israel Anti-Boycott Act
115th Congress (2017-2018)

Sponsor: Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD] (Introduced 03/23/2017)
Committees: Senate – Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Action: 03/23/2017 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.

The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:

  • requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; and
  • restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel.

The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

  • requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or 
  • supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.

Cosponsor and Date Cosponsored
Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]* 03/23/2017
Sen. Nelson, Bill [D-FL] 03/27/2017
Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL] 03/27/2017
Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] 03/27/2017
Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] 03/27/2017
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT] 03/27/2017
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] 03/28/2017
Sen. Young, Todd C. [R-IN] 03/28/2017
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR] 03/28/2017
Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA] 03/28/2017
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI] 03/28/2017
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] 03/30/2017
Sen. Perdue, David [R-GA] 03/30/2017
Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS] 03/30/2017
Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS] 03/30/2017
Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND] 04/04/2017
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX] 04/04/2017
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE] 04/04/2017
Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV] 04/24/2017
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS] 04/24/2017
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID] 04/24/2017
Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA] 04/24/2017
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] 04/25/2017
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV] 04/26/2017
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] 05/01/2017
Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA] 05/01/2017
Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH] 05/08/2017
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY] 05/09/2017
Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK] 05/16/2017
Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC] 05/17/2017
Sen. Donnelly, Joe [D-IN] 05/23/2017
Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC] 05/25/2017
Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX] 06/05/2017
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV] 06/05/2017
Sen. Strange, Luther [R-AL] 06/05/2017
Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO] 06/06/2017
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD] 06/12/2017
Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR] 06/12/2017
Sen. Sasse, Ben [R-NE] 06/15/2017
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] 06/26/2017
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO] 07/12/2017
Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK] 07/12/2017
Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA] 07/18/2017
Sen. Tillis, Thom [R-NC] 07/19/2017
Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR] 07/19/2017

Criminalizing non-trade

This is, quite possibly, the most insane proposed federal law I have ever heard about. And it has bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats alike.

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West. In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. The U.K. has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. In the U.S., governors compete with one another over who can implement the most extreme regulations to bar businesses from participating in any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements, which the world regards as illegal. On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech.

But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year….

The bill’s co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate’s more liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Maria Cantwell of Washington. Illustrating the bipartisanship that AIPAC typically summons, it also includes several of the most right-wing senators such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Marco Rubio of Florida.

A similar measure was introduced in the House on the same date by two Republicans and one Democrat. It has already amassed 234 co-sponsors: 63 Democrats and 174 Republicans. As in the Senate, AIPAC has assembled an impressive ideological diversity among supporters, predictably including many of the most right-wing House members — Jason Chaffetz, Liz Cheney, Peter King — along with the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer.

It is becoming abundantly clear that it is not boycotts of Israel – or anything else – that should be outlawed, but rather, AIPAC. Those corrupters of the already corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make the badthink go away. But it doesn’t work like that; quite to the contrary, it intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.

I don’t boycott Israel myself; one of our best authors is Israeli. But everyone, in every country, should be absolutely free to do business or not do business with Israeli organizations and individuals as they see fit. And every U.S. Senator or Representative who has endorsed this bill should be hounded out of the offices for which they are clearly unfit.

The ever-inept Republicans can’t repeal Obamacare but they have time for this idiocy? And even if you are the most philosemitic Christian Zionist who ever declared his willingness to shed the very last drop of American blood for Israel, you must be able to see that this proposed legislation is not just absolutely and utterly wrong, but completely un-American.

This is further evidence that direct democracy is not merely preferable to representative democracy, but a moral imperative.

Meanwhile, some co-sponsors seemed not to have any idea what they co-sponsored — almost as though they reflexively sign whatever comes from AIPAC without having any idea what’s in it. Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, for instance, seemed genuinely bewildered when told of the ACLU’s letter, saying, “What’s the Act? You’ll have to get back to me on that.”

The Magna Carta and Posterity

John C. Wright makes an observation that is not insignificant in relation to last week’s debate on the meaning of Posterity:

The effect of the Magna Carta on later charters of rights, on the Glorious Revolution, and on the Bill of Rights of the American Revolution should be known to all educated citizens in America.

To say nothing of its effect on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Does this sound familiar?

We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

Keeping in mind that the American Revolution was fought to preserve and protect the Rights of Englishmen, which of the three alternative definitions of “Posterity” most accurately represents the term used in the phrase “ourselves and our Posterity” in light of this section of the Magna Carta?

  1. actual legal descendants and heirs
  2. succeeding generations living within the same geographic boundaries
  3. later times
As the authors of both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers also demonstrate, the only possible answer should be perfectly clear.

Milo sues Simon & Schuster

This should prove interesting, one way or another:

Milo Yiannopoulos, the former Breitbart tech editor and self-styled conservative provocateur whose public battle with Simon & Schuster following the publisher’s decision to cancel his book deal and its reported $250,000 advance, has kept his promise to self-publish his book, Dangerous, in spite of the setback—and to continue to cause problems for S&S. Following the book’s release on July 4, Yiannopoulos held a rally and protest outside the S&S offices on July 7, where, he told PW Thursday evening , he was to announce a $10 million lawsuit against the publisher for “breach of contract.”

Dangerous was the #1 bestseller and #1 new release on Amazon immediately following its July 4 publication; Yiannopoulos’s outside PR firm, AMW Public Relations, told PW that “100,000 copies were delivered to Amazon and sold out in the first day of release,” although “a large number of them were on pre-order.” Matt Sheldon, director of business development at the firm, said that hard copies are being distributed through Amazon and Barnes & Noble, adding that “100,000 more copies are being printed now and will be distributed to Amazon [and] B&N as well as some other outlets.”

My expectation is that despite its posturing about prevailing “in court” – they are sending a message that they will not settle – S&S will settle for paying off Milo. Why? Because they absolutely do NOT want this to go to discovery. Remember, I am a former Pocket Books author with connections inside S&S, and I have heard that there were conversations between S&S and Amazon concerning Milo and his book that neither company will want to be made public via discovery.

Better than Reagan

Speaking of John C. Wright, the science fiction and fantasy grandmaster reminds us that while the God-Emperor is overturning the media’s collective apple cart with his tweets, he is also getting a great deal done:

President Trump fulfilled another campaign promise and recinded the absurdly unconstitutional Johnson Amendment, which is a Dem administration IRS regulation threatening preachers, priests and pastors with loss of their tax free status for their churches should they ever speak on political matters from the pulpit.

I had never heard any so called conservative politicians even speaking on the topic of the Johnson Amendment erenow. It has been in place for decades, an insolent, open, filthy, glaring, and obvious desecration of the central Constitutional liberty embodied in the First Amendment.

Donald Trump is already showing strong signs of being the best and most conservative President the United States has had since Calvin Coolidge. Believe it or not, he’s much, much better than Ronald Reagan ever was. I was there. I loved Reagan. And the God-Emperor is, to this point, doing much better than Reagan.

Still. Not. Tired.


On tonight’s Darkstream, I explained how Trump has gotten off to a much better start than Reagan did in 1981, and also mentioned some ideas about the possible purpose behind the God-Emperor’s meeting with Vladimir Putin this week.

Everything they feared and more

The Left is freaked out by the staunch legal conservatism of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch:

On Monday, Justice Neil Gorsuch revealed himself to be everything that liberals had most feared: pro-gun, pro–travel ban, anti-gay, anti–church/state separation. He is certainly more conservative than Justice Samuel Alito and possibly to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas. He is an uncompromising reactionary and an unmitigated disaster for the progressive constitutional project. And he will likely serve on the court for at least three more decades.

Although Gorsuch has barely been on the bench for two months, he has already had an opportunity to weigh in on some of the most pressing constitutional issues of our time. In each case, he has chosen the most conservative position. On Monday, Gorsuch indicated that he opposes equal rights for same-sex couples, dissenting from a ruling that requires states to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. (Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined his dissent.) That, alone, is startling: In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court held that the Constitution compels states to grant same-sex couples “the constellation” of “rights, benefits, and responsibilities” that “the states have linked to marriage,” including “birth and death certificates.” Obergefell, then, already settled this issue. Gorsuch’s dissent suggests he may not accept Obergefell as settled law and may instead seek to undermine or reverse it.

Gorsuch also joined Thomas in dissenting from the court’s refusal to review a challenge to California’s concealed carry laws. California grants concealed carry permits for “good cause”—namely, a “particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense.” Gun advocates challenged this rule, alleging a violation of the Second Amendment. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California regime, and on Monday, the court declined to reconsider its decision. Thomas and Gorsuch dissented vociferously, essentially declaring that the Second Amendment grants individuals a right to carry loaded firearms in public. Not even the archconservative Alito joined their bizarre opinion. It appears Gorsuch is eager to strike down almost any law that limits the right “to keep and bear arms” in any way. If adopted by the court, Gorsuch’s theory would effectively bar state and local governments from passing almost any kind of gun safety legislation.

Conservatives used to say that the only thing that mattered about presidential elections was the Supreme Court. Well, by that standard, the God-Emperor is already the greatest conservative president of the post-WWII era. We’ll have to see how his future appointments shake out, but at 1-0, he’s already doing better than Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder, or Bush the Younger.

Supreme Court brings back travel ban

The God-Emperor is vindicated:

In a victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump’s proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments as early as this fall.

The court’s decision means the justices will now wade into the biggest legal controversy of the Trump administration — the president’s order temporarily restricting travel, which even Trump has termed a “travel ban.”

“Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security,” Trump said in a statement. “…As President, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.” He added: “My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today’s ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation’s homeland.”

The court made clear that a limited version of the policy can be enforced immediately with a full hearing to come in the Fall.

Next step: full immigration ban and deportations to the travel-ban countries.