- Getting weirder all the time. Cops use data from a man’s pacemaker to charge him with a crime. (H/T M)
- And while of course it’s long been a crime to “drive while black” or even walk or bike while black in the wrong neighborhood, now apparently it calls for police action if you’re a prosperous brown woman walking in your own neighborhood. This woman really handled the abuse with grace, though. (Tip o’ hat to PT)
- Now we’ll see if it gets through the Senate. But the House has v*ted to repeal Obama’s Social Security-related gun ban.
- Judge halts Trump’s immigration order. Trump calls judge’s order ridiculous (and adds embarrassing hyperbole). And around and around we go.
- Although the White House denies a key part of this particular report, it’s yet another sign of how much resistance there is to Trump in his own administration, and not just from Obama leftovers. (Tip o’ hat to MJR)
- Rats. Using rather tortured reasoning, a federal magistrate has ruled that the fedgov can, after all, seize data stored overseas. Because … um, it’s not really being seized or something like that.
- Cato weighs in: The order is illegal. (Ahem … illegal in part for reasons I’ve been stating all week.)
- I don’t think I’d have the guts to take this one on. But some kind Scandinavians save a moose stuck in ice
- Of course the day wouldn’t be comeplete without funny dog fails.
Moose: Aw, heck. I was waiting the the gunshot at the end, when some hunter got a lucky shot.
I love animal rescues.
Haven’t various groups been banned against entry by several presidents? It’s not something I’ve ever paid attention to, but IIRC it goes back to Ike. And Obama had three bans, one for six months.
It’s not religious n nature, considering the ban speaks to seven of forty-seven Islamic countries.
Trump’s issue seems to be national security, which last I heard is part of his job. In today’s world, why is it bad to keep ISIS-ites and their sympathizers out of the US?
“why is it bad to keep ISIS-ites and their sympathizers out of the US?”
Nobody’s claiming that it is. The many and varied objections to what Trump did and how he did it have been discussed here, at the Cabal, and elsewhere. Not one of them has been pro-ISIS.
But in what way is it an effective move against ISIS to deny valid visa holders entry? In what way is it an effective move for the safety of U.S. residents if some of the biggest sponsors of terrorism aren’t included in the ban? I mean, leaving Saudi Arabia off the list? Can anyone think its a serious move against terrorism when the sponsors of the 9/11 murderers always get a free pass?
Oh, grosssssss, Bear. Satire, just satire. Yes? Yes.
The gold muzzle poking out of what looks like a sweatshirt sleeve… wouldn’t be a corgi by any chance? LOL Sure looks like one. And yes, I can just see Laddie like that if I ever left a shirt on the floor. 🙂
Claire: Yep. That was an ad for “Shark Week” on some cable network or other. But funny.
Usually not so dramatic as that, but a fair number of “rescued” sea critters do die when released by well-meaning Pan Stultus.
I’d posit that when you’ve lost Dilbert, you’ve lost.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156778990841/berkeley-and-hitler
“Valid visa holders.” Like the guys in the airplanes on 9/11?
“Valid visa holders.” Like the guys in the airplanes on 9/11?
But those guys were mostly Saudis, Desertrat. And Saudis remain a-okay with Trump, despite Saudi Arabia being behind 9/11.
It would help if you could explain to me what makes individuals from the seven “banned” countries more dangerous than Saudis or citizens of other Middle Eastern countries.
Why? Trump or no Trump, absent a cherchez le moolah, the why of any government decision seems to have little to do with common sense. Even if there is a desirable goal, the methodology is usually poor.
I gotta admit that I’ve felt over-crowded since our population grew to 200 million. Letting non-contributory people come here is against my “druthers”.
It’s not that it was a group of Saudis who did in the WTC. It’s that they had the visas without vetting. Sloppiness of our embassies and consulates in granting visas caused that and other incidents of lesser harm. Foggy Bottom is not our friend.
Sharia law is 180 degrees off from our constitution, and specifically the First Amendment. So why allow any believers come here? Why import enemies?
“So why allow any believers come here? Why import enemies?”
Desertrat – “Believers” are not the enemy. We “believe”… you “believe”… everybody “believes” in something – a religion, a philosophy, a lifestyle, a “spiritual” (or not) purpose or journey.
It’s not what a person “believes” that matters, but what he does – what, why, and how he delivers.
That’s why we can classify government officials as traitors; no matter how they dress up their rhetoric, they continue to betray the Constitution, their campaign promises, and the people they supposedly represent.
What ever happened to separation of church and state, anyway?
Your rhetoric is starting to sound like Ye Olde England.
If we can check “believers” at the gate, which believer do we accept in? And how can you know if that immigrant is telling you the truth, or merely what you want to hear?
“What ever happened to separation of church and state, anyway?”
Exactly my point: How do you separate Islam/Sharia or Sharia/Isllam? It is a politico/religious system which is irrevocably intertwined.
We do not institutionalize classes of people, here in the U.S. Islam/Sharia does that very thing. Why import people who believe that you are merely second-class and that you should in law be subservient to them? I’ll not bother to list the myriad anti-woman aspects.
I do not want the US to ever have the sorts of problems as does France with the banlieus, or the crime problems noted in Sweden and Germany. We have enough home-grown problem areas without creating more.
Two of the saddest statements of which I know: “It can’t happen here” and “It will be different, this time.”
“I do not want the US to ever have the sorts of problems as does France with the banlieus, or the crime problems noted in Sweden and Germany. We have enough home-grown problem areas without creating more.”
Too late! Our own religious war has arrived here in the States.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/05/town-takes-stand-after-mayor-forced-to-remove-christian-flag.html