Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Trump Calls for Tougher Travel Ban, Bemoans Political Correctness

Following the Friday morning suspected terrorist attack in London, President Donald Trump tweeted that the "travel ban in the United States should be far larger."

The president began his address of the London train attack by calling it the work of a "loser," and terrorists losers in general, in two consecutive tweets. He also said that terrorists "must be dealt with in a much tougher manner."

"Another attack in London by a loser terrorist.These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be proactive!"

"Loser terrorists must be dealt with in a much tougher manner.The internet is their main recruitment tool which we must cut off & use better!"

In another tweet, he then addressed the "travel ban" on some Muslim-majority countries he implemented through executive order during the first month of his presidency.

Trump tweeted, "The travel ban in the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific- but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!"

The travel ban, which the administration initially argued was not a "ban," has come under fire from various activists and politicians since its implementation.

The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's limits on the travel ban this week, the Washington Free Beacon reports:

The full Supreme Court concurred with Justice Anthony Kennedy on Tuesday to overturn a lower court's limits on the Trump administration's travel ban.

The court issued a one-paragraph summary statement late Tuesday evening overturning a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Washington Post reports.

Tuesday's ruling concurred with the preliminary ruling issued by Justice Anthony Kennedy on Monday evening. Kennedy's ruling was also summary; neither offered reasoning for the decision, although this is not an abnormal practice.



Political correctness runs amok in sports media

Before Colin Kaepernick took a knee and became a movement, he was a pretty good football player. And then, he wasn’t anymore. Whether his foray into social activism coincided with his athletic devolution is debatable, but it is clear that we would not be talking about the fellow today if he were practicing his throws instead of scolding white society for being racist.

And that’s his right; and as far as protests go, it’s pretty tame stuff. But the people around Kaepernick are not quite as innocuous, including his girlfriend, Nessa Diab, who tweeted out a racist picture of Ray Lewis. Diab juxtaposed a photo of Lewis hugging Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti with a shot of Samuel L. Jackson’s slave hugging Leonardo DiCaprio’s master in Django Unchained. The implication was unmistakable: Black athletes who don’t disrespect the flag or the national anthem are Uncle Toms, while people like Kaepernick are heroic.

I don’t know about you, but I’m fed up with the politicization of sports. It was bad enough when Eagles fans started boycotting games because they didn’t like the fact that reformed dog torturer Michael Vick was on the team (and can I say he turned out to be one of the most decent and humble men to ever wear the green and white?)

But now it’s really gotten out of hand, with people caring more about what happens off the field (or court, or ice) than on, and grafting their political grievances onto the games themselves. We have Colin K., weeping about the racism inherent in denying a job to a washed-up athlete with too much baggage. We have ESPN giving the “Arthur Ashe Courage Award” to Caitlyn Jenner instead of a courageous teen who died of brain cancer, primarily because Jenner changed from male to female on a Diane Sawyer prime-time special. I have to say that if acquiring a set of breasts is considered courageous, half of Hollywood should have qualified for the award.

And speaking of ESPN, the network has produced a cottage industry of hysterical, “you can’t make these up” gaffes that show just how far up the derriere of political correctness they’ve traveled. First, there was the decision to remove a broadcaster named Robert Lee from covering a football game at the University of Virginia because they were worried that, in the wake of the tragedy in Charlottesville, it would seem tasteless. Robert Lee is Asian American and has about as much to do with the Confederate general as Vivien Leigh, who won an Oscar for playing a woman who supported General … oh, never mind.

Then there was the debacle of Sergio Dipp, who spent his inaugural appearance on the network by rambling on about how wonderful diversity and immigrants and all that stuff is, when the people who are paying to watch a football game didn’t care about the cultural heritage of the coach and just wanted to hear some marginally coherent commentary from the sideline. He explained his performance as follows: “All I wanted to do was to show some respect, making my debut as a minority on American national TV, the biggest stage out there, on the most heartfelt day in this great country made up by immigrants, but on some people’s perspective, it all went wrong.” That “most heartfelt day” was 9/11 and frankly, it wasn’t a time to extol the virtues of immigrants, especially not at a football game.

But ESPN has decided it must now carry the water for the Social Justice Warriors and inject its own view of how the world should be into the sports arena. So when Curt Schilling wrote, “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much,” he was immediately fired. But when Jemele Hill, another employee, tweets, “Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists,” she gets a finger wagged in her face and the network comes out with “We have addressed this with Jemele and she realizes her actions were inappropriate.” And she still gets a paycheck and a covert wink from the higher-ups.

I wonder why Schilling wasn’t given the same consideration. I wonder why starring in a reality show is courageous. I wonder why worrying about triggering snowflakes with the last name of “Lee” is an issue, and why some Dipp goes all Emma Lazarus on Monday Night Football.


National Idolatry and Constitution Day

By federal statute, September 17 is designated as a holy day in the American civic religion. On that day in 1787, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention affixed their signatures to the document that they had created and that governs us today. The website encourages public demonstrations of love for the Constitution and features a picture of smiling and diverse citizens waving American flags and looking up as if a god is about to descend.

Exactly what we are supposed to celebrate is not clear. A national debt above $20 trillion? A president and Congress with few, if any, limits on their power? A Supreme Court that dares to hold that the antediluvian definition of marriage is unconstitutional?

The priesthood of our civic religion admits we face challenges but claim, in the words of the editors of Investor’s Business Daily, that the Constitution is “as close to perfect as man has come” in the science of government.

So what document could rival our Constitution? Actually, the constitution that preceded it.

The Articles of Confederation, drafted by the same Continental Congress that declared independence, is truer to the Spirit of 1776 than any plan of government that ever existed.

The United States, in their infancy, sought a union strong enough to guide the collective desire for independence from Great Britain but unable to infringe upon the right of self-government in the individual states. Contrary to what our high priesthood tells us, the Articles were an American success story. In 1783 the Treaty of Paris officially ended the American Revolutionary War. King George III acknowledged that the 13 former colonies were “free sovereign and independent states” that could govern their affairs without interference from the distant British Parliament in Westminster.

The people had little to fear from a union styled as “firm league of friendship.” Congress had no power to act upon individuals. Instead, it had to work through the state governments. In this manner, the states served as mediators between Congress and the people. This buffer provided greater security to the people in their rights secured by the state constitutions.

The Articles also restricted congressional power with term limits. Under Article V, “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years.” The Articles endeavored to prevent the establishment of an American ruling aristocracy and championed the idea that public service should be open to individuals as talented as those already holding power (or perhaps more so).

Before the Confederation Congress could borrow money, a supermajority of delegates had to approve. Although the confederal government struggled with fiscal issues because of the cost of the War of Independence, the supermajority requirement was meant to protect the fiscal soundness of the government and to prevent the rulers from incurring unnecessary debt. Congress was to live within its means absent extraordinary circumstances.

Under the Articles, there was no omnipotent judiciary that claimed the final say on the meaning of the charter of government. The Confederation opted for a more modest judicial system in which Congress could only create courts to adjudicate maritime matters. State courts were the institutions that decided disputes among the citizenry.

While the states enjoyed vast powers, we should not think that they operated with no limits. The Articles imposed reasonable restrictions on the state governments. For example, absent the consent of Congress no state could send or receive ambassadors, enter into treaties, or engage in war. The Articles sought to make the states one as to foreign policy but leave them otherwise free to govern their internal affairs.

Of course, the Articles were not perfect. Congress needed an independent power to raise revenue, and the struggles to service the debt after the peace was concluded ultimately led to the Philadelphia Convention and our more energetic system of national government. Modest revisions in the Articles could have permitted the United States to function as a viable confederacy for the remainder of their existence.

Rather than bow down and venerate the Constitution on September 17, Americans should dust off the Articles of Confederation and study the handiwork of the Continental Congress. In it they will find a plan of government that makes liberty the primary object of government and power serving as a mere satellite.


Extraordinary black on black violence

A brawl has been captured on video of two couples fighting in a New Jersey Walmart on Saturday while their young children look on in horror and try to stop the fight.

In the minute long video, the two couples can be seen tussling near the jewelry section in the store.

The two sides appear to be a woman and man both wearing black tops versus another couple in red and burnt yellow shirts. 

As they beat on each other, two little girls can be seen trying to stop the chaos and hit on one of the women to stop while crying.

Another woman wearing a pink blouse comes up and tries to separate the mothers while their partners continue to duke it out.

More people start to spectate and grow more in concern for the children who are almost being trampled by the fight.

A woman wearing galactic blue and purple leggings comes to assist, removing the children as the woman in pink detains one of the mothers.

As the fathers continue fighting, Walmart personnel intervene and tries to stop them and the mother in yellow who has now joined the fight.

Meanwhile, a woman wearing a pink jacket and a headscarf starts screaming at everyone involved in the fight 'What about the kids?' and 'STOP!'

As the father in the black shirt gets separated from the fight, she literally steps in front of him and keeps repeating 'look at your kids' until it dawns on the man that he was fighting in front of him.

She yells for him to 'walk away' and he finally turns to see his family.

As the other couple walks toward them again, the woman in the pink jacket who has managed to control the situation more than the employee staff starts screaming at them to think about the kids as well.

The video ends with all the couples in corners being visited by patrons and staff who chastise them for having fought in front of the children. 



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: