Jeff Sessions confirmed to Attorney General post

Washington Examiner:

Democrats changed the rules in 2013 so that only a simple majority is needed to approve a president’s Cabinet nominees. Under those rules, the Senate easily confirmed Sessions in a party-line 52-47 vote, and was helped by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who had said he would support Sessions’ nomination.

Sessions himself voted “present,” and was met by applause from Republicans after the vote total was read out.

Hollywood in meltdown.


This still has legs:


Trump’s Law

8 U.S.Code § 1182 (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Dr. Arieh Eldad wrote about a burn center patient turned suicide bomber.

Dr. Arieh Eldad” width=“252
Snopes says this is true.

From: Dr. Arieh Eldad, November, 2008:

I was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank, which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.

This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery. This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair.

We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza. She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.

Dr Arieh Eldad

CBS Poll: Two-Thirds of Democrats Say Islam, Christianity Equally Violent

Let’s see, I’m trying to remember, isn’t one of those religions associated with, “Peace on earth, good will toward all people?” Which one is it, can someone help me with this?

Even the Seattle Times says judge was wrong on Trump travel ban

Fact check: No arrests from 7 nations in travel ban? Judge in Seattle was wrong

The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump’s travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump’s order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Just last October, an Iraqi refugee living in Texas pleaded guilty to attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group, accused of taking tactical training and wanting to blow himself up in an act of martyrdom. In November, a Somali refugee injured 11 in a car-and-knife attack at Ohio State University, and he surely would have been arrested had he not been killed by an officer.

The judge, James Robart, was correct in his larger point that the deadliest and most high-profile terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 — like the Boston Marathon bombings and the shootings in Orlando, Florida, and San Bernardino, California — were committed either by U.S. citizens or by people from countries other than the seven majority-Muslim nations named in Trump’s order.

But he went a step too far at a hearing in Seattle on Friday.

He asked a Justice Department lawyer how many arrests of foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/11. When the lawyer said she didn’t know, Robart answered his own question: “Let me tell, you, the answer to that is none, as best I can tell. You’re here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries and there’s no support for that.”

OK, the judge got his facts wrong. However, do you see what is really wrong with the judge’s ruling? It’s plain from the last sentence above in which Judge Robart said: You’re here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries and there’s no support for that.

What gives a Federal Judge the right to second guess the President of the United States on matters of national security? How many secret agents work for this judge who can give him access to classified information? How the hell can he possibly know anything about what the President knows?

Trump has taken heat for referring to James Robart as a “so-called judge.”  I think Trump has every right to refer to this judge in that manner. It is the judge himself who has earned it by his intrusion into matters that are beyond the scope of his authority.

It doesn’t matter that the judge got the facts wrong because the facts don’t matter in this case.  Uh oh, you say. Facts don’t matter?

No, they don’t. Federal Judges simply do not have the jurisdictional authority to interfere with the President on matters of foreign affairs.  Even if the judge were right that no arrests from those 7 countries has occurred since 9/11, he still has no jurisdiction over the subject matter before him.

Judges do not have access to the knowledge that the President as commander in chief of the armed forces and with responsiblity for national security has. He does not know nor could he know what information might have been discovered by the National Security Agency, the CIA, the FBI, or any number of other agencies within the executive branch and to which only the President and his closest advisors have access. Often information affecting national security must be kept secret in order for any President to effectively manage what could be a forebodingly dire situation.

If the President had information from the National Security Agency that the Baader-Meinhof gang had reformed in Germany and was planning a trip to the U.S. posing as German tourists but were actually carrying a suit case nuclear device, what limits would there be on the President’s power to deal with such a matter? None, is the answer. At least none that a Federal Court could impose.

If the President makes dumb decisions in matters of national security he will suffer poltically for sure, but he is not subject to second guessing by federal judges who have no access to the same sort of information the president has.

Why are Republicans dragging their feet on the repeal of Obamacare?

Where is the Obamacare repeal we were repeatedly promised?  It seems Repubicans have got a bad case of the slows on repealing Obamacare. They’re trying to figure out what to replace it with but they don’t need to replace it with anything.

Once Obamacare is repealed people will be free to buy insurance of their choosing, unless the Republicans don’t want us to have that freedom.  What are the arguments against allowing people to cooperate with each other in a free market? Abraham Lincoln told his audience at the Lincoln/Douglas debates in Chicago on July 10, 1858 just what those arguments are:

What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge [Stephen Douglas] is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices—”me” “no one,” &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of “no, no,”] let us stick to it then, [cheers] let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

Get the lead out Republicans and keep your promise to repeal this awful liberty-killing market-corrupting law!

The Left’s War On Science

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

The Daily Mail:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming [emphasis added .Ed] and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

The most vicious war on science is done by those who corrupt science to suit their own political agenda. Cui Bono, always.

Who had the power to revoke that stuff I learned in law school? [UPDATED]

I remember learning some Constitutional law in law school. I remember that the executive branch has implied plenary power over foreign relations. Justice Jackson said so in the Youngstown Steel case in 1952. It hasn’t been seriously challenged since. Law school, that’s where I learned that.

Courts may not decide political questions. Those questions and issues are resolved exclusively by the political branches. Another thing I learned in law school.

States do not have standing to challenge in court a president’s conduct of foreign relations. Foreigners not actually present in the United States do not have rights under the U.S. Constitution. More law school memories.

Who revoked all this? It must have been revoked because some Federal judge in Oregon (maybe it was Washington, who cares?) just issued a restraining order against President Trump’s executive order barring immigration for 120 days from 7 Muslim countries because it was necessary to protect national security. Courts don’t have the power to second guess a president’s assessment of the need to protect national security against terrorist threats from abroad.

Is that all gone, are we living in a brave new world where judges decide what should or should not be done to protect America from terrorism?

The 9th Circus has just refused to overrule the Oregon Judge’s restraining order and has ordered the parties to submit briefs. This was done by just two judges from the 9th Circus.  One was appointed by Jimmy Carter, the other by Obama. The two worst presidents ever. Worse that James Buchanan and worse than Andrew Johnson. Maybe not worse than Woodrow Wilson, but just as bad.

I don’t believe that everything I learned in law school is bunk. If it is I want my tuition money back. This is the sort of crazy illegal judicial behavior that people who voted for Trump want to be stopped.

Want to take your mind off this crap? Well, there’s the Super Bowl today [4:30 Mountain, 2:30 Eastern on Fox Network] in which I think the Patriots will win in a blow out. [UPDATE: OK, it wasn’t a blow out, but it was one of the greatest come backs in football history] Brave, I am to make a prediction about the future. I’ll watch it but I’m less interested in the Super Bowl since the NFL has become so political. I’m warned in advance that the commericials are going to be left-wing rants. Or you could scroll down and check out my own rant on table saws. It is something different.

UPDATE: I just listened to a rant by NYU law professor Richard Epstein in which he tore into Trump for the executive order and said Trump is so out of control he should resign immediately. I was shocked by this because I have long respected Professor Epstein as a legal scholar. Clearly Professor Epstein agrees with the judge who issued the injunction and the 2 judges on the 9th Circus who refused to overturn it. But listening to his tirade against Trump was like seeing your favorite uncle who you thought was a pillar of propriety walk through the door falling down drunk. Other scholars seem to vindicate what I said above. Ann Althouse, also a law professor, appears to question the decision by these judges. Another Judge in Massachusets refused to grant an injunction. So I’ll stick with what I learned in law school over 40 years ago. I think it might still be good law.

Bitter Fruit for the Berkeley Rioters

The Berkeley rioters will reap some bitter fruit from their 2 days of destruction, burning and beating. Their goal of silencing Milo Yiannopoulos has instead given him an even larger voice. He says he will return to Berkeley in the next few months to give the speech he was prevented from giving this week, and it may be televised.

Milo’s book Dangerous has been No. 1 on Amazon all week. That’s in pre-orders since the book won’t be released until March 14th. Yiannopoulos does what good generals do. He does not cut and run; he retreats, regroups, and rejoins the fight at a time of his choosing.

A blizzard of fake news from the old media

The Daily Caller rounds up a short list of fake news from this past week:

Journalists can’t seem to get their stories straight in the opening weeks of the Trump administration, whether in tweets or in articles where falsehoods have been spread almost daily.

The mistakes have not just been from newer liberal news outlets such The Huffington Post or BuzzFeed, but from legacy media like Reuters, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.

I’ve written a quick summary, read the Daily Caller story for full details:

On Thursday NBC issued a report that Trump was easing sanctions on Russian intelligence agencies, referring to Trump as “Comrade Trump.” It was later revealed to be just a technical fix that began under Obama to avoid unintended consequences from cybersanctions. Some news outlets are continuing to run the original version.

New York Times reported this week that Trump’s executive order on immigration was issued without consultation with Homeland Security or the Justice Department. NBC also had a story claiming Trump blindsided these agencies. Homeland director John Kelly strongly denied this saying he knew it was coming, and in fact the Justice Department had approved the order before it was released.

The Washington Post reported that Steve Bannon urged Homeland Security Chief Gen. John Kelly not to issue a waiver to green card holders. This is false, Steve Bannon did no such thing. Neither did anyone else. This story is still all over the news without correction or retraction.

Washington Post reported that the entire senior staff of the State Department resigned during Trump’s first week. It failed to mention that all but one also did that during the transition from Clinton to Bush.

The Atlantic claimed this week that Trump forced the resignations of several senior Secret Service officials. Secret Service spokeswoman says that is “completely false.”

New York Times said this week that Trump thinks press secretary Sean Spicer went to far in his attack on the media at his first White House press briefing. Washington Post later reported Trump said he thinks Spicer didn’t go far enough.

Associated Press and CNN report that Trump threatened to send U.S. Troops into Mexico to round up some “tough hombres.” In fact, Trump merely made that the offer to Mexican President Nieto, he never “threatened” anything of the sort. Clearly, no troops are ever going to cross the Mexican border without an express invitation from the Mexican government. The fake news that Trump made a threat is still being perpetrated by the fake news industry.

The fake news industry is not merely the new liberal media outlets. It is that but it is mainly made up of the old legacy media. They no longer hide their contempt for conservatives and the GOP. They can no longer claim with any credibility that their habit of false reporting in the result of honest mistakes. That don’t make mistakes, they don’t merely distort. They outright lie. They are little different from the “Fleet Street scandal mongers” that Samuel Johnson complained of in the 18th Century.