If Trump is a Russian Puppet then why…..

download (5).jpg

Here is a series of questions that liberals have never been able to answer about their Russian conspiracy theories.

Why is Trump pushing oil and natural gas? 

This is actually the biggest one. Russia relies on oil and natural gas for its economy. In fact it would not be an understatement to say that this is the biggest weakness of Russia. Any major reduction in price would be enough to trigger an economic downturn in Russia. If Trump were a Russian puppet why would he increase production of oil and natural gas by the US? Economics would say that the more supply in the market the lower the price gets. Would it not be more beneficial for Russia if the US were to decrease production increasing the price of oil and gas?

Why is Trump speaking out against refugees in Europe  ? 

The biggest event to destabilize Europe in recent memory was not the election of Trump, Farage and brexit, or even the Grecian debt crisis. It was Merkel inviting millions of savages from the middle east to settle in Europe. This completely overwhelmed border countries who were not in great shape to begin with and even caused a backlash of independence movements across the continent demanding to withdraw from the EU culminating in the UK actually voting to leave. For single handedly inflicting the greatest crisis the EU faced upon itself Merkel was lauded by the liberal world order. If Trump wanted to help Putin by destroying the EU would it not be simpler for Trump to let the situation continue by praising Merkel? After all the refugee crisis has made the EU so weak that it has to bow to the demands or face them releasing their refugee hordes. Instead Trump tells Europe they are hurting themselves by welcoming so many Muslims.

Why is Trump insisting that NATO countries increase defense spending?

Forget about the border countries. Most of them like Estonia are already hitting the target and the rest are too small to matter. In any case their spending is trending up. The real military power in continental Europe would lie within Germany and France. They have the economy necessary to equip a force that can stand up to the Russians and more importantly their spending for defence is trending down. If Trump was a Russian puppet would it not be easier to let the European armies stagnate so the Russians can march into Berlin again?

Milo Did Nothing Wrong

images-13

Everything Milo said in that interview is perfectly reasonable and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. In fact anyone who thinks otherwise should get off the internet as you will see a lot more unspeakable things which will offend your delicate sensibilities. I would advise skipping any liberal comedians as well as they routinely say worse things. I encourage everyone to actually watch the video for themselves. One of the best things about this time is that the original source material is almost always available online.

Legal Age vs Emotional Age

In the interview Milo was very clear that he believed the current legal ages are apt and should not be changed. In fact towards the later part of the interview he shows disgust and gravity when discussing the young boys involved in the parties in Hollywood. He clearly shows he does not approve of those things in that portion of the interview.

On to what he did say. It is perfectly reasonable to think that people evolve emotionally at different rates. Some people may be ready for sex at a younger age and some people may not be ready for sex even when they hit the age of majority. I hate to break it to everyone but teens have sex all the time. A quick google search will show you that in 2013 46% of high school students were sexually active. Those people obviously felt that they were mature enough to have sex before 18. Granted they most likely had sex with people their own age but Milo felt different. He felt that he was mature enough to handle a relationship with a 29 year old. According to Milo in his recent press conference he was a 17 year old having a relationship with a 29 year old man. Would this still have been illegal according to the letter of the law? Yes. If Milo complained about it at the time he would have been perfectly within his rights to have the 29 year old man arrested. Yet he didn’t because he felt he was mature enough to handle the relationship. I specifically point this out to show that other people who were forced into these relationships when they felt they werent ready can and should complain.

Underage Attraction

In his interview Milo pointed out that some men or women may be sexually attracted to teenagers. His host argued that only perverts would do that and that has been the media interpretation as well. Just as people develop emotionally at different rates people develop physically at different rates as well. It is absolutely possible to think a teenager would be over the age of consent just by looking at her alone. It is also possible to think that they would be sexually desirable. Milo makes a clear distinction between people whose bodies have not yet matured emotionally and physically and those who have.

Food for thought on this subject. Hustler videos has 140 videos in their barely legal series. 140. If there was no market for it there would not even be 5.

Support Relationships

Milo brought up that in the gay community there are relationships between homosexuals of different generations. Relationships are not purely about sex and according to Milo the older gays help the younger ones cope with their new identities. He says this is important as the younger gays may be repressed in their own communities as they may have parents who do not understand their identity and the partner in the relationship ends up being the only person the other one is able to rely on.

Having your identity repressed is one of the issues the left has been bringing up for decades. This is the reason why they say they have to identify whether or not your a tranny at grade one. In fact the gay muslim democrat who shot up the night club in Orlando was only supposed to have done it because his religion repressed his sexuality. If the gay community has found a way to deal with this between two consenting people then more power to them.

Victimhood 

One of the major critiques against Milo is that he is treating the relationship he had at a young age as something that was beneficial to him and something that he wanted instead of something that harmed him. In other words he was expected to act like a victim and when he did not the left got mad.

The way you react to situations in life is the only thing you really control. If Milo felt that the relationship was beneficial to him then he is the only one who can make that call. The left should not force Milo and other people into a box to fit their narratives. I do stress again that other people will have different experiences and if they were forced to have sex without their consent by older people then they should absolutely file charges.

Why go after Milo?

Milo is not alone at being targeted. Ben Shapiro, Pewdiepie, any person who expresses a conservative or in this case libertarian viewpoint to the youth and is successful at it is being systematically silenced by the left. The left has long believed that students should only be able to hear liberal viewpoints and are counting on this for future elections. Anything that threatens this is met with instant hostility. The left not only tries to silence opposing viewpoints but rather tries to destroy the careers of the people who would threaten their monopoly.

Milo and others like him are finally making inroads into territory that have previously been exclusively held by liberals. Republicans should listen to the actual conversations and rally around these figures instead of falling for the fake outrage generated by the left. If we abandon Milo and others like him to liberals when they are attacked, or worse help them do it then no one would provide the valuable services they do. Remember they are only singled out because what they are doing is actually working.

The Democratic Play Book

download-4

I have looked thru the tactics of the democrats and found that they use almost the same tactic for each and every election and republican president. Without further ado I present the Democratic Playbook

The Republican is always Fascist, Racist, Sexist, Homophobic and Hitler.  Look at the previous election and a pattern emerges. Reagan was fascist Bush was Fascist Dole was Fascist Bush jr was fascist McCain was fascist Romney was fascist and Trump was fascist. The actual person on the ticket doesn’t matter. The narrative will always be that the Republican is all these things.

Once They are Not Relevant Republican Candidates are Great. Stop me if you have heard this before from a liberal. Romney was great compared to Trump. I would have supported McCain instead of Trump. Romney was a monster compared to Trump. I wish we had President Cruz! Liberals will try to pretend they are reasonable by virtue signalling that they would have supported previous Republican candidates.The reality is of course that they would never have supported any Republican over a Democrat.

Take Samantha Bee for instance. In one of her shows she was saying she would rather have President Cruz rather than Trump and listed off positive attributes about him. Yet a couple of months prior when Cruz was still a potential candidate she attacked him constantly.

There is also a corollary to this rule. I call it the crying wolf rule after Bill Maher apologizing to his conservative guests for crying wolf over the previous candidates. The corollary is liberals will always tell you that this particular one is the worst one and that they apologize about calling the previous ones Fascist until they start on the next one.

The Republican President is Incompetent. Whether it is Reagan, Bush v1, Bush v2, or Trump the Republican who wins the presidential election will always be portrayed as out of his depth and unprepared for the job. The actions of the people themselves don’t matter it is the fact that they are Presidents from the opposing party. This is used in conjunction with the last entry in the playbook as the previous Republican administration will always be spoken of in glowing terms.

We Were Cheated. Whether it is gerrymandering, voter suppression, or even now RUSSIANS democrats have never admitted to losing a legitimate election. We even have democrats complaining about how they lost the senate due to gerrymandering. This is why despite losing more than a 1000 seats you do not see any self reflection efforts that is equivalent to the autopsy that the GOP did when they lost to Obama.

A corollary to this is the voting against best interest rule. It reads anyone not voting for the democrats is uneducated and has been tricked into voting against their best interests. No legitimate reason for voting Republican exists.

A second corollary to this is that any minority who votes for the GOP not only does not have no legitimate reason for doing so but must be publicly shamed as an object lesson for the rest of the minorities not to rebel against the Democratic party. Uncle Tom and Aunt Jemima used to be the public brands that the democrats would use but the party has evolved to use the more general Mediocre Negro.

The President must represent all Americans, using our policies. Once elected the Republican president must immediately enact all policies that the democrats want. If he does not do this he will be accused of not representing the views of all Americans. The reasons the voters may have selected him does not matter or any promises he made to them. The President must immediately govern as a democrat.

Not My President. This is a new addition to the playbook and one we are only seeing this election. Riots, demonstrations, full attack by the biased media, and calls from impeachment from day one. Full obstruction on every cabinet level nominee from the congress and lawsuits to halt everything else. The goal is to replace the President and any following him until a suitable democrat is found. All future Republican presidents will now have to deal with this tactic.

The Theory of Political Capital

images (12).jpg

Analysts like Morning Joe and others always point out that Trump is using up his political capital by making his moves and that he needs to reach out to the left in order to govern and rebuild it. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding in our political class about what exactly political capital is and how it is spent.

Political capital is the technical term for your currency in governing. It is used to get people to support things that they would normally oppose. Political capital is not only something you get during an election to be spent during your tenure, it is a fluid thing. When you do things that a person or group does not like you lose political capital and when you do things that a person or group likes then you gain political capital.

Trump

What has Trump done so far? He has rolled back regulations, nominated a justice the right loves, tried to impose harsher entry procedures, cracked down on illegals, and placed a cabinet the right mostly likes. If anything Trump even has more political capital with his voters than when he started. There is a portion of his voters who held their noses and voted for him for the supreme court pick and they are behind him now more than ever. After all they know they can count on him for future picks. Has Trump annoyed the left? Yes he has but he never had any political capital with them anyway. You can’t lose what you don’t have. In fact he may have gained more with the TPP pullout.

Obama

Contrast this with Obama. His first major legislation was Obamacare. The right was never going to like it no matter what so he was going to lose some political capital with them. The left should have liked it since that is what they voted him on. Except they didn’t. In an effort to compromise the provisions the left liked such as single payer were removed from the bill. By handling it this way Obama lost political capital with both the right and the left. At the end of the day he will go down as the president who decimated the democratic party. While Trump by sticking to his promises will have built up the GOP in the midterms.

Compromise

The main talking point of the left is that in order to succeed Trump must compromise with them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The left has no power. They are not needed to pass anything in congress and the court will soon be conservative. Compromising with the left will only lead to the alienation of Trump’s base which would be suicidal and would get you nothing. The people filing cases to stop your orders will not stop just because you compromise with others.

The left uses a moral argument as well. Trump is President of the whole country therefore he has to do what we want even if we lost. At the end of the day there is no merit in compromising with people who think you are literally Hitler. You may as well get your agenda done and win them over with success as any compromise will not do it. If you’re agenda was going to fail then it would have failed anyway without them.

It would be nice if the country was unified but it does not have to be. There are two competing visions for the country and at certain points they cannot be reconciled nor should they have to be. Everyone seems to forget that on the top of most historians list of great presidents is Abraham Lincoln. Instead of compromising with half the country he went to war with them. If he compromised with the democrats of his time African Americans would still be slaves.

In Defense of General Flynn

images (11).jpg

General Flynn did nothing wrong. Let me repeat that again. General Flynn did nothing wrong. The left are now celebrating the downfall of General Flynn as the first scalp they have claimed from the Trump administration. I have no great attachment to him and I am sure his replacement will be more than capable of filling his shoes my annoyance at this whole situation is the fake outrage that the left has been spinning in an effort to hinder President Trump. The argument from the left is that since General Flynn was speaking to the Russians it proves two things first he violated the Logan Act and second the Russians conspired to help Trump.

Logan Act

The Logan act is a 200-year-old law prohibiting individuals without authorization from negotiating on behalf of the US government. This law was made partially to ensure that the incoming administration would not block the outgoing administration. To my knowledge no one has ever been convicted of a violation of this act or even been prosecuted because of it.

There is a reason no one is prosecuted for this and it is only used to smear political opponents. This law made sense 200 years ago. It took months almost a year for an incoming administration to replace an outgoing one. Things moved much slower as well so the new president had all the time in the world to start from scratch. Things have changed a lot since then. The president is expected to be able to hit the ground running and rightly so as things change globally on a daily basis. The transition happens so quickly that there is even an informal lame duck etiquette where the outgoing administration is not supposed to involve the new one in anything major during this period. Again the new team is expected to hit the ground running and this can only happen if they have had contacts beforehand.

The media and political class know this as well. The press consistently mentioned Hillary’s connections with other world leaders as one of her selling points. Do you think she would not have contacted them to discuss things after she won? None of her staff would have as well? Do you really think they would start at zero when they entered the white house? Trump himself met with the Mexican President during the campaign and everything was fine.

I would hope they actually did discuss sanctions as that is one of the main issues in the relations between the two countries.

RUSSIANS!!!

We have the Russians again. The US election is a domestic event which impacts the entire world. Of course everyone is going to try to tilt the election towards the candidate they perceive will work better with their country. Do you think Putin was the only one trying to influence the outcome of the elections? Multiple countries gave money to the Clinton foundation and Hillary. Check my earlier article for the actual quotes, during this time multiple world leaders came out strongly against Trump in an effort to turn public opinion against him.

The Pope flat out said that Trump was not christian. The British left tried to ban Trump from coming into their country. European leaders all over wanting to stabilize the EU effectively called Trump a madman. Vicente Fox took any interview he could get to mobilize the latino population against Trump. Of course this did not only happen for Clinton. Other leaders tried to put their thumb on their scale for Trump. Farage even went to a couple of his rallies.

In continually criticizing Trump the other world leaders created an environment where there was a steady drumbeat of negative headlines that the press could use to hurt Trump with the electorate. This is the exact same situation that the wikileaks emails created. It just so happened that the emails had more impact because people trusted wikileaks more than the world leaders who spoke out against Trump. Other nations will always work for their own self-interest and everyone and their dog tried to influence this election.

Fake Outrage

The secret democrats don’t want you to know is they are not actually mad because the Russians allegedly hacked the DNC. The democrats are only mad because they lost. If Clinton won would we hear anything about Russian hacking? No the media would keep silent about it because just mentioning it would damage Russo-Us relations. Instead because it is Trump we have the media actively trying to shape US foreign policy.

The entire Russian angle has become one giant coping mechanism for the liberal press and the democrats. This is not a unique situation. Republicans only win because of gerrymandering, Republicans only win because of voter suppression, Republicans only win because the Koch brothers bought them. Every single time the left loses it is never their fault. They just could not claim the regular excuses this time as it was a national election and Clinton outspent Trump by a factor of 2 to 1. When the Republicans lost they birthed the tea party and had an autopsy. The autopsy was dreadfully wrong but at least it was made. There was some acceptance of responsibility.

Accepting that they lost this election also means accepting that they have lost the culture wars by overextending. After all how else could you lose to a racist, sexist, fascist, bigot. It has gotten so bad that even relatively benign people like Pewdepie are being labelled as racist, sexist, fascist people. So we have the Russians.

If your a democrat and want to discount everything I have said so far then fine but please pay attention to this next part. Clinton lost because she did not build a coalition. Period. Trump selected a VP from the opposite side of the party in Pence so even with all the scandals people in both factions were invested in the ticket succeeding. Clinton selected a VP from the same faction ignoring the progressive wing of her party which meant that people were ready to abandon her at the slightest sign of trouble. Incidentally this is also the reason why the Justice democrats will lose as in that case it will be the progressive wing abandoning the center. This is the one and only reason Clinton lost.

If you’re a Republican well I hope you’re enjoying the show. The collective meltdown of the left will lead more people towards the truth than ever before.

Pokemon and Islam

images (9).jpg

When you look at facts objectively one cannot deny one thing. Mohammad was divinely inspired by Pokemon when he created the rules for women in Islam. I am well aware that pokemon came after Islam but the divine works in mysterious ways and the similarities are too close to discount.

Teams – In Islam there is a hard cap in the number of wives you can have four just as there is a cap in the number of pokemon you can have which is six. Unless you are Mohammad who can have unlimited wives you cannot break this cap. Islam theorists have also speculated that the reason that Islamic mean can have four different wives is for specialization. One would be for her godly character, one for her dutifulness and housekeeping skills, one for her beauty, and one to advance the social status of the man something akin to a political wife. Of course the specializations would evolve over time. It could be by fetish now. It is remarkably similar to pokemon. I could not have a team of 6 pikachus as that would leave me weak to earth type pokemon. I would need to specialize and have a fire type, earth type, and others as well.

Pokeballs- In Pokemon when you are no longer using a pokemon it is supposed to go inside its pokeball until it is needed again. Nobody knows what it does there or how it spends its time except it is always ready whenever you need it. Nobody can see the pokemon without the owner summoning it for his pleasure. In Islam we have the womans quarters or haramlik. The women are kept there until needed like the pokeballs and they can only come out in the presence of their trainers or husbands and other authorized male relatives.

Signature Moves- Whenever pokemon get into battles they always do what their trainer says. They will not follow any other trainer and they will even learn new moves at the instruction of their trainers. This is similar to how Islam treats women. Women are always to be subservient to men and follow whatever they say.

Gotta Catch em All – When you begin your pokejourney you fill up your team with whatever pokemon you can get. Then when better ones come along you either boot out the old ones or place them in storage. The same principle applies to Islam. You do not need to be picky about the first wives you choose. You can just say I divorce you thee times and you can get rid of your old ones to make room for new.

Trade- In pokemon you can trade your old unused pokemon with other trainers. Sometimes this is the only way to acquire special items or evolutions. The same is true with Islam. You can trade women with other owners either for other women or for goods and services.

Combat- In pokemon the trainer regularly seeks out other trainers to fight. In combat however the most sacred rule is that the trainers must not get hurt. The pokemons can do whatever they want to each other but the trainer. We see a similar strand in Islam. Women are kept around and used as human shields so that their trainers will not be targeted.

Capture- In pokemon when you capture a new pokemon you throw your pokeball. It does not matter whether the pokemon wants to be captured or not. It is the same with Islam. To add new women to your team you negotiate directly with her previous owner. The woman has no say.

Judicial Tyranny II: Trump Must go to SC

images (8).jpg

The 9th circuit declined to remove the TRO for two reasons. First they had due process considerations for the green card holders that were affected by the ban. Second the court used the precedent of the Lukumi case to look beyond the EO and declare that the intent was to disfavor Muslims. For this article I will be focusing exclusively on Lukumi and pointing out why Trump MUST go to the Supreme Court to have it overturned. First because an EO is either constitutional or its not so if the EO doesn’t clear either of these standards then it will be unconstitutional and second because the Trump administration already provided an exception to the Green Card holders and most of the people of that nature affected by the ban the courts just did not want to recognize it.

Lukumi

The Lukumi case was used as precedent to allow the courts to look beyond the four borders of the EO. The Church of Lukumi is a religious entity with some very particular beliefs. Without going into the details one of them happens to do with animal sacrifices. In 1987 the Hialeah city council passed a series of ordinances banning animal sacrifice. They then proceeded to make exceptions for Kosher butcheries and most other things that may fall under the ordinance.

The Supreme Court held that while the statute was fine on face value taking the exceptions into consideration, the recording of the council deliberations,  and various other details the EO was unconstitutional. They said that while the EO again was facially neutral the intent was to gerrymander it to target the Lukumi church.

Travel Ban

In the case of Trump v Washington the ninth circuit accepted the arguments of the plaintiffs that the various statements made by President Trump during the initial period of the campaign as well as a statement from Rudy were enough to declare that the legislative intent behind the EO was to target Muslims. They specifically used the precedent of Lukumi to allow them to look beyond the EO.

Contrast the facts of the Trump situation vs Lukumi. In Lukumi the law was crafted to specifically target the minority group. In the travel ban most muslims were left out and are not impacted in any way. Six of the seven countries have governments that barely function so it is hard to get data from them but according to worldwide census data 10% or less of the worldwide Muslim population live in these countries. In Lukumi the town council was consistent that animal sacrifices were anathema to their community values and this was reflected in the deliberations. President Trump started with a Muslim ban back in the primaries, modified it almost immediately to exclude citizens, it then underwent sever al more modifications to become the extreme vetting we have today.

Anyone can see that the standards of Lukumi has been greatly expanded to make the case for Trump. The main issue here is that Lukumi already presupposes a constitutionally sound EO, which in all honesty the travel ban is. The argument was to look beyond the ban for the legislative intent. This means that there is no possible way for Trump to change the EO to make it constitutional. The argument of intent will always be there and will always be used to declare it unconstitutional.

This has far deeper implications than just this one EO. Suppose there is a country whose populace just had a holiday where they all chanted death to America. Whose leadership was openly hostile to America and had a history as the very first entity to use suicide bombers. Since they are a Muslim majority this same argument could be used to declare it unconstitutional. You could even make the argument that this could extent to other things. Trade executive orders, foreign policy orders, anti-terrorism ones. This is a perfect example of why this is judicial overreach. With this one decision the courts have essentially taken away all the powers of the Executive regarding immigration.

TRO

Liberal lawyers will say I am wrong and this is merely a temporary restraining order so I am getting bent out of shape over nothing. I agree this is still a TRO. However anyone who is making this argument is naive and does not look at the practical effects. Any time President Trump makes a law regarding immigration then anybody can file a case and get a TRO on these grounds. Given the liberal interpretation of standing the ninth circuit uses it is possible to get it filed in the courts under their jurisdiction have a friendly judge issue a TRO and the ninth will then use the same argument to uphold the TRO.

There is no other recourse here. Trump has to go to the Supreme Court to get them to declare that these arguments are nonsense. I have no doubt they will do that as when you start getting legislative intent from the campaign trail then it opens up a wide door that changes the legal system forever. This must also be done for practical purposes. The left will keep filing these cases and there is nothing Trump can do to stop that. If Trump takes all these cases to the Supreme Court then the sheer number of victories you get will give you a campaign issue to mobilize your base in 2018 and 2020.

Judicial Tyranny and the Ninth Circuit

judicial_tyranny-281x300.jpg

The ninth circuit has ruled on the case of the travel ban of President Trump and until overturned we have new controlling law. I will try to examine all the implications of this decision.

Exemptions Must Be Specific in the Law or EO – The court based most of its decision on the due process rights of the green card holders that were initially part of the ban. In the EO there is a specific provision that allows the government to make exceptions on a case by case basis. The government used this and declared well before the case made it to the ninth circuit that green card holders were exempt from this EO. The court said that it could not take that into account as it was just a directive from the white house as to how to implement the EO and not on the law itself.

Clauses which allow for exemptions are now invalid as each specific instance must be listed in legislation or executive order. Directions made by the executive or legislative are not valid.

Intent is Derived from Surrogates and Public Statements – The court found that the travel ban may have the intent to be a muslim ban because of statements made by President Trump and Mayor Giuliani.

This is a break from normal procedure where you look to the law itself first. Since the EO only affected 7 countries out of dozens of majority muslim countries world wide it could not be a muslim ban by a plain reading of the EO. This means that any statement at any time by a public official can be used to make a law or EO unconstitutional.

For example if a politician were to make a public speech praising an industry or a specific company any law he takes part in could now have the benefit of that company as a motive and be declared unconstitutional no matter what the statute itself states.

Minorities Have No Special Treatment – The court had serious concerns about the EO favoring christian minorities in refugee applications because it was a religious test and it put the majority in the affected countries at a disadvantage.

As of this ruling religion is no longer a protected class. If the Germans started gassing their jews again then the court rules that they should not be given special protections. More realistically if the Chinese for instance start persecuting the Buddhists in Tibet or the Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan start something neither of them could be given special treatment. Scholarships available to Muslim students and other things of that nature should be unconstitutional as well according to this rule.

Over and above this any special treatment to minorities can be arguably declared unconstitutional as well using the same logic. In fact giving special treatment to Syrian refugees would be questionable as that would be detrimental to refugees from other countries.

Need Determines Constitutionality – In deciding the constitutionality of the travel ban the courts have said that they are not persuaded by the evidence provided by the government as to the need for a travel ban. They bring up the argument by the plaintiffs that terrorist attacks from these countries have not hit the US from these countries. As an aside let me point out that attacks have hit other countries in Europe we just don’t like to talk about it.

Others have said that it is asinine for the government to need to wait till a terror attack hits before placing a ban on travel from these countries. That is true but the most important development is the courts can now impose a need test to determine constitutionality. If the law is otherwise valid yet the courts are not convinced for a need for it despite the legislative or executive being convinced then it is unconstitutional. Of course the standard for need is left exclusively upon the courts to decide.

For example the US Senate could ratify a treaty. Since need is now part of the considerations it could be challenged and declared unconstitutional because the courts see no need for it.

Due Process is now Global- The courts held that even if the visa cardholders were not part of the equation the refugees in those countries were deprived of their rights without due process therefore the law is unconstitutional.

When sanctions are placed on Russia for example it could be challenged on these grounds as the sanctions would deprive the Russians citizens of either life, liberty, or property without giving each of them due process.

The ninth circuit just changed the way law works forever. Part of me wishes for the Supreme Court to uphold the decision just for the hilarity that would ensue.

 

Democrats are Destroying the Legal System

images (7).jpg

The democrats are making my head hurt. Initially we had a constitutional challenge to the travel ban. The legal argument for that was that the intent of the ban should be gotten not from the text of it nor from the statements of the government regarding the executive order but rather from statements made on the campaign trail and by a friend of the President. Now we have a constitutional challenge to the executive order requiring agencies to remove two regulations for every new one they put in place. The legal argument being that the order might remove a regulation that should stay in place. No mention of any specifics. The constitutional challenge is that the executive branch no longer has the right to repeal regulations that the executive branch itself put in place. This is not the end of it. There will be more nonsense coming up.

Crying Wolf

In an effort to oppose Trump democrats are manufacturing constitutional crisises that don’t exist. The legal arguments against the executive orders are so bad that under normal circumstances they would never have been made, with good reason as they go against every established practice in law. Yet because the Democrats are hell bent on opposing Trump no matter what the cases will go to the Supreme Court and they will be forced to decide on it.

There is a dirty secret to constitutional law that nobody wants to admit. I can make any argument I want against any statute or order I want and I will find a court that will agree with me on it. That is not a question. This is not limited to democrats either. There are liberal courts and there are conservative ones. It all depends on finding the right court. The ninth circuit for instance has 83% of its decisions in cases the Supreme Courts hears overturned. If they had that rate of accuracy in law school they would never have graduated.

The democrats have control over a significant portion of the media which means that they are able to portray these cases as legitimate no matter how stupid they actually are. It then puts the Supreme Court in a position where it either has to side with Trump giving the impression that it is caving to him or oppose him overturning every legal precedent out there which they will not do. Worse partisan hacks on the democratic side will be forced to create a dissent to agree with these views. Ginsberg will be forced to defend why the executive no longer has the right to repeal its own regulations and Sotomayor will defend why it is proper to ignore the statute and instead focus on public statements for statutory construction. Note that I am not saying partisan hacks on the right do not exist either. These dissents will now be part of jurisprudence and can be used by hacks on the right and the left in the future.

The public seeing these things will reach one of two conclusions. Either the democrats cry wolf all the time and should not be listened to or that the Supreme Court has no will to stand up to Trump and will just rubber stamp everything he does eroding trust in the court. When an actual legitimate constitutional crisis does come up Trump will be able to point to all these decisions as well and say that the issue of the day is just another nuisance lawsuit. Except at that point it will not be a nuisance suit and a valid legal question. Anyone has the right to challenge the constitutionality of the executive and legislative and it is a vital part of our checks and balances. Used incorrectly it weakens the very thing that we need.

Justice Gorsuch

When Gorsuch was first brought up I initially said I was ambivalent towards him. In another article I said that I did not vote for the Supreme Court and it was much more important to me that the other members in the Trump coalition who did vote for the Supreme Court pick were happy with the choice. I have now come to realize that we need Justice Gorsuch badly.

Gorsuch once wrote “American liberals have been addicted to the courtroom relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education, This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.”

This is exactly the kind of attitude that we need right now. One of the justices needs to stand up to the left and tell them enough is enough.

Yuge in Yemen

n00103859-b.jpg

I wanted to wait for some time before giving my reaction to the raid in Yemen. Mostly to have a clearer picture of how the raid actually went and partly to see how other people would react to it and see what I saw. First of what actually happened? Seal team 6 ran a raid in Yemen. The goal was to capture some data and to kill some high ranking Al Qaeda leaders. When they got to the area they met some resistance which may have been heavier than expected. The Seal team had one member killed and 3 wounded with 1 aircraft destroyed. In exchange some high ranking Al Qaeda members were killed, along with the terrorists some women and children were killed as well. The Seal team members claim some of the women were firing back at them. Some data was recovered as well.

The media, predictably with anything related to Trump claims that this is a massive failure of an operation. This is actually a success in my book.

Paradigm Shift

One of the main reasons that the media lists the raid as a failure is that it killed women and children. Including the American born child of terrorist Al Zarkawi. This may sound cruel to everyone but this is a feature not a bug. One of our main challenges when dealing with terrorists is that they consistently use human shields. It is not a coincidence that these people were surrounded by women and children. That is by design. The terrorists know that America will not target them if they are surrounded by enough women and children that is why they make the conscious choice to have them there. In fact it looks like the higher the rank of the terrorist the more women and children they are surrounded with.

Targeting the terrorists even if they have human shields around them sends a powerful message to them. We will not give them any quarter any longer. They can surround themselves with all the sacrificial lambs that they want and we will still go after them. Once they find it no longer works maybe they will stop using human shields as well. Allowing the troops to engage while there are human shields also tells the terrorists that we have relaxed the rules of engagement and will be giving the troops more freedom in engagement. This is exactly what we need to finally make some headway with terrorism.

A navy seal was killed. It is always tragic when a soldier is killed but it does not mean that the mission is an automatic failure. In fact as we widen our scope of acceptable targets we may suffer even more casualties. In return we do exponentially more damage to the terrorists. The alternative of course is status quo , where we fight the same war on terror for 15 years with no progress. Just in this raid alone we killed some very senior Al Qaeda figures.

Yemen

Due to the loss of their civilians Yemen has withdrawn permission for US troops to conduct operations in their soil. Most people count this as a loss and I see a collective hand wringing from the perpetually outraged left as well. The reality is we lost Yemen as an ally when we supported Saudi Arabia invading them. Yemen is well aware that the civilians injured were used as human shields by the terrorists. They just never had another opportunity to feign outrage as the last operation we ran there happened before Saudi Arabia invaded them. Since both of their national interests ran against each other we had to select which one to support and in the wider scheme of things Saudi Arabia was mor important.

This operation signifies that we are finally ready and willing to fight terrorists and eradicate them at all costs. Mattis and Trump are off to a great start in their new crusade against terror and I wish them more success.