Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

I guess the tragic death of Laken Riley highlights the dangers of running alone at night as a female. It's only an "illegal immigration" issue because Rs are SEIZING or POUNCING on the tragedy.

I can't help but think of, you know, Ferguson. Or George Floyd. And comparing the response of those motherfuckers.

[Mike]

Or the recent double murder at a Purdue satellite campus. I must have missed the national conversation about it.

In Israel - Hamas war news this morning it's being shouted from the rooftops from nearly every media outlet that Israeli troops opened fire on starving Gazans who were waiting for food, killing upwards of a 100. It is a complete lie, of course. There was a massive rush on the trucks that resulted in people being trampled. Some of the truck drivers took off and ran over people. Some Gazans took off running toward an Israeli troop position and their commander instructed they fire some warning shots in the air. When some of them continued toward their position they shot some of them in the legs. Not a good situation for anyone to be sure but NOT some military assault on starving women and children as is being reported.

[Da Geezer]

Would “misinformation” fall into a different category than, say, blatant racism? Or pro-Hitler content? Does social media really have to choose between allowing ALL speech or face liability for anything anyone posts? I don’t believe it works that way for newspapers.

Back in the old CNN days there were people who delighted in disrupting threads with scat pics or pictures of people vomiting. Spamming threads in fact. That’s legal speech. I don’t see it being a fair trade off for Twitter to lose its liability protection because they’re behaving like an editor in removing that kind of shit.

The issue is that only conservative speech was called "misinformation". The liability protection granted to social media companies in Section 230 is the payoff for the companies doing the government's bidding (as proven thousands of times when Musk took over Twitter). The government cannot accomplish unconstitutional goals by paying private parties to do so.

Newspapers can be sued for publishing things that they know are untrue. But that is not the real issue. What all the social media platforms did WITH THE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENTS was, for example, to stifle good-faith debate about many issues during Covid. When reputable doctors questioned the efficacy of the vaccine or questioned the "benefits" of the vaccine, they were censored and were often fired. People who refused the vaccine were fired. No matter what you believe the Hegelian dialectic leads to better outcomes (even Marx believed this) The US Constitution guarantees us the ability to engage in disagreement. When only one side is allowed to have their say, not only is it blatantly unconstitutional, but it hurts the whole society.

And it is only the Left that wants censorship. That is because their arguments are all based on the idea that if we find the right ruler, we will have heaven on earth. For the Left, it is all about power to rule. Conservatives believe man is depraved and no person should be trusted with power.

[Da Geezer]

Speaking of sociopaths:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/illegal-immigrant-with-lengthy-rap-sheet-arrested-in-maryland-sanctuary-county-for-allegedly-murdering-two-year-old/

More "Sanctuary City" idiocy.



I am QUICKLY becoming a single-issue voter this November.

Every judge who refuses to recognize a proper detainer should be sued personally under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. That act makes the judge personally liable for damages because he refused to enforce the law. That would end all the Sanctuary City bullshit.

Everyone on this forum who cares about illegal immigration needs to read what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter, particularly about aiding and abetting illegal immigration:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11003#:~:text=%C2%A7%201324(a)(1,be%20in%20violation%20of%20law.%E2%80%9D

The rulings speak for themselves.

Now, what are we to do with Trump's claim of absolute immunity for official acts done during his presidency? If such immunity is not granted, what stops criminal prosecution of Biden and his henchmen for aiding and abetting 10 million illegals from coming across the border? Why shouldn't Biden be charged just like Trump has been charged? I understand that Trump telling a crowd to "peacefully and patriotically" protest at the capital may not be considered an official act, but what if it was determined to be so?

This issue massively increases the power of the SC and diminishes the power of the Executive. What if the oath to "...see that the laws be faithfully executed" means, without immunity, that the President cannot have disagreements with Congress? Do we want to go there with the President being tried for not following Congress' laws after he leaves office?

No wonder the Dems want to pack the SC.

[Mike]

Thanks for the info, Geezer. I've been thinking there has to be a way to sue the municipalities that refuse to follow federal law but hadn't thought about the individual judges.

[Dr. Strangelove]

And it is only the Left that wants censorship. That is because their arguments are all based on the idea that if we find the right ruler, we will have heaven on earth. For the Left, it is all about power to rule. Conservatives believe man is depraved and no person should be trusted with power.

Trump's Truth Social is heavily censored.

Truth Social’s Censorship, Terms of Service Defy Free Speech Promises - Public Citizen

Trump's Truth Social Bans Users Who Post About Jan. 6 Hearings (variety.com)

Trump's Truth Social Rejects Free Speech, For Good Reason | Cato at Liberty Blog

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jon Adler on the Supreme Court granting cert in the Trump immunity appeal

Worth pointing out, as he does, that the Court is not even considering Trump's claim that it'd be "double jeopardy" for him to be prosecuted for the same conduct when the Senate acquitted him in 2021. The USSC is letting the Appeals Court's ruling stand in its entirety on that question (they thoroughly rejected Trump's argument).

The Supreme Court's Grant in Trump v. U.S. (reason.com)

[Jeff Buchanan]

On the "100's of Palestinians were killed while waiting for food when the IDF opened fire on them" crap: Hamas has the wherewithal and the motive to have placed fighters in the crowd that was being policed by the IDF. Israel has stated that they are playing a role in policing activities to stop "runs" on aid trucks. That is because there has been a complete breakdown in civil order about which, Hamas, having direct responsibility for law and order in Gaza as long as they continue to claim to be governing the place, should be doing. Instead, chaos.

Who started shooting? Its not clear but one opinion holds that Hamas fighters, embedded in gatherings of Palestinians to receive aid, opened fire from with the crowd and IDF soldiers were the targets. In self defense, the IDF fired back. Keep in mind that Hamas has no regard for the lives of Palestinians. That's in keeping with their distorted belief that human casualties are acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of their goals - the elimination of the Israel state.

Supporters of Israel and it's right to exist are losing the battle of properly building a reality - at least in the western press and probably the Arab press, that has an interest in creating a reality favorable to the Hamas terrorists. The west needs to match the efforts of it's enemies, all of them, to create a realty favorable to free and democratic nations. We suck at that. Democracy is fading in its global appeal. Many have warned, going back to the emergence of democratic governments, that freedom isn't free. You have to fight for it and we're in a really big fight weighed down by woke idiocy and it's every where you look.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well they might not be winning the press battle but look at opinion polls and 2/3 to 3/4 of the US is squarely behind Israel.

[Mike]

It should be much higher.

In the wake of 9/11 do you think it would reflect positively on America's views if 2/3 to 3/4 of Americans were "squarely behind the U.S." in their campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

[Dr. Strangelove]

In some polls it is. What I cited is basically the floor.

[iam416]

I think it's almost impossible to get above 75% for any one issue. That's why the poll that had 85% or something saying The Chairman is a doddering fool and shouldn't run is so astounding.

[iam416]

Meanwhile, Rich Lowry absolutely savages The Chairman for obviously creating the border situation: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/...up-the-border/

And if you just wanna read The Chairman's EO that undid all the good work there -- https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...nage-migration

Sec. 4 . Restoring and Enhancing Asylum Processing at the Border. (a) Resuming the Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Claims at United States Land Borders.

(i) The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall promptly begin consultation and planning with international and non-governmental organizations to develop policies and procedures for the safe and orderly processing of asylum claims at United States land borders, consistent with public health and safety and capacity constraints.

(ii) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Director of CDC, shall promptly begin taking steps to reinstate the safe and orderly reception and processing of arriving asylum seekers, consistent with public health and safety and capacity constraints. Additionally, in furtherance of this goal, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:

(A) The Secretary of HHS and the Director of CDC, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall promptly review and determine whether termination, rescission, or modification of the following actions is necessary and appropriate: “Order Suspending the Right To Introduce Certain Persons From Countries Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease Exists,” 85 FR 65,806 (October 13, 2020); and “Control of Communicable Diseases; Foreign Quarantine: Suspension of the Right to Introduce and Prohibition of Introduction of Persons into United States from Designated Foreign Countries or Places for Public Health Purposes,” 85 FR 56,424 (September 11, 2020) (codified at 42 CFR 71.40).

(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly review and determine whether to terminate or modify the program known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), including by considering whether to rescind the Memorandum of the Secretary of Homeland Security titled “Policy Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols” (January 25, 2019), and any implementing guidance. In coordination with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of CDC, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly consider a phased strategy for the safe and orderly entry into the United States, consistent with public health and safety and capacity constraints, of those individuals who have been subjected to MPP for further processing of their asylum claims.

(C) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly review and determine whether to rescind the interim final rule titled “Aliens Subject to a Bar on Entry Under Certain Presidential Proclamations; Procedures for Protection Claims,” 83 FR 55,934 (November 9, 2018), and the final rule titled “Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications,” 85 FR 82,260 (December 17, 2020), as well as any agency memoranda or guidance that were issued in reliance on those rules.

(D) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly review and determine whether to rescind the interim final rule titled “Implementing Bilateral and Multilateral Asylum Cooperative Agreements Under the Immigration and Nationality Act,” 84 FR 63,994 (November 19, 2019), as well as any agency memoranda or guidance issued in reliance on that rule. In the interim, the Secretary of State shall promptly consider whether to notify the governments of the Northern Triangle that, as efforts to establish a cooperative, mutually respectful approach to managing migration across the region begin, the United States intends to suspend and terminate the following agreements:

(1) “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala on Cooperation Regarding the Examination of Protection Claims,” 84 FR 64,095 (July 26, 2019).

(2) “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of El Salvador for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Claims,” 85 FR 83,597 (September 20, 2019).

(3) “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Honduras for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Claims,” 85 FR 25,462 (September 25, 2019).

(E) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly cease implementing the “Prompt Asylum Case Review” program and the “Humanitarian Asylum Review Program” and consider rescinding any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines or policies implementing those programs.

(F) The following Presidential documents are revoked:



(1) Executive Order 13767 of January 25, 2017 (Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements).

(2) Proclamation 9880 of May 8, 2019 (Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States).

(3) Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 2019 (Additional Measures to Enhance Border Security and Restore Integrity to Our Immigration System).

(4) Presidential Memorandum of April 6, 2018 (Ending “Catch and Release” at the Border of the United States and Directing Other Enhancements to Immigration Enforcement).

(5) Presidential Memorandum of April 4, 2018 (Securing the Southern Border of the United States).

[iam416]

MPP is "Remain in Mexico". The Secretary ultimately revoked that policy w/ obvious results.

The Northern Triangle stuff is about agreements w/ other Central American countries to process asylum seekers. Those were revoked by The Chairman (who obviously wanted all asylum seekers).

And "catch and release" was reinstated.

So, the asylum seekers entering from Mexico no long hard to remain in Mexico they were straight into the US; there was no longer any ability to have other Central American countries handle the asylum claims; and we were back to catch and release.

I mean -- it's entirely The Chairman's fault. Whether you think this is bad or good -- it's entirely on The Chairman.

[Mike]

Nah, it's just cyclical immigration patterns!