Category: Answer O’ The Day

Q:
Why do the demoncraps suddenly hate Elon Musk so much?

A:
It’s not so much Musk personally, but what DOGE represents; The exposing and dismantling of the corrupt bureaucrap state and the hog trough on the goobermint gravy train that corrupt politicans and their lackeys have used to graft literally trillions of dollars into their pockets with little to no way to track most of it.

I can’t say if Woodrow Wilson had it planned this way, but his ‘progressive’ state laid the foundation for the bureaucrap goobermint of Roosevelt’s welfare state, and later the military industrial complex formed to fight World War 2, that provided the ways and the means for those with corrupt intent to scam the system for their own benefit.

Those people are now the ones we see screaming their heads off, accusing Trump and Musk of everything they can think of to stir the low IQ mob into insanity.

It pays to remember that the insane can be quite dangerous, and as an acquaintance says often enough: “Prepare Accordingly”

BLUF
So in conclusion, please: Stop politicizing everything. Stop looking for counterfactual counter-narratives. Give credit where credit is due.
And most importantly, stop posting legal arguments that are completely devoid of law. You have a responsibility to the people of this country.
Do better.

Mark Goldfeder

Dear @Senate Judiciary Democrats 🇺🇸 (🦋 now on bsky) , You are so incredibly wrong, and I can prove it. A thread, in response to yours. The only difference? Mine has citations. Let me explain:

Just to recap… Mahmoud Khalil exercises his First Amendment rights. But, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio didn’t agree with what he said.


To begin, the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(3) contains a number of activities for which a person can be deemed ineligible based on security and related grounds. Subsection (B)(i) has nine grounds related to terrorism. uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req

Most of the nine are not controversial at all- people engaging in terrorism, etc.

The one that has you all indignant is ground number (VII): [Any alien who] endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

You say you are concerned that this ground would violate the First Amendment rights of someone like Mahmoud Khalil. Let’s examine that contention.

First, let us be clear that you are not arguing that he has not endorsed or supported terror. I say this because if only you expressed any concern about the people he has been terrifying for over a year, maybe I would have some sympathy for your crocodile tears now. You didn’t.

So the question becomes: Are his First Amendment rights the exact same as a citizen’s First Amendment rights? The answer may surprise you: Not exactly, but it does not matter.

At least some First Amendment protections do apply differently to aliens than they do to citizens. Ready for those citations? See, for example. Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. 3 I0, 419-424 & n.51 (2010)

“The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees. When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily raise constitutional problems…the constitutional rights of certain categories of speakers, in certain contexts, “ ‘are not automatically coextensive with the rights’ ” that are normally accorded to members of our society, Morse v. Frederick , 551 U. S. 393, 396–397, 404 (2007) (quoting Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser , 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986)).”

Now, my dear Dems, are there any cases discussing the types of ways in which speech rights might be applied differently to foreigners who do specific things, including advocating for certain group that for good reason, considers dangerous and a threat to national security?

Why yes! Thank you for asking. In fact, there is over 120 years of Supreme Court precedent! See Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904)

(This case was about anarchists who wanted to violently overthrow the government, but you can substitute Hamas affiliated anti-West agitators who want to…violently overthrow our institutions):

“…Congress was of opinion that the tendency of the general exploitation of such views is so dangerous to the public weal that aliens who hold and advocate them would be undesirable additions to our population, whether permanently or temporarily, whether many or few; and, in the light of previous decisions, the act, even in this aspect, would not be unconstitutional, as applicable to any alien who is opposed to all organized government…

We are not to be understood as depreciating the vital importance of freedom of speech and of the press, or as suggesting limitations on the spirit of liberty, in itself, unconquerable, but this case does not involve those considerations. The flaming brand which guards the realm where no human government is needed still bars the entrance, and as lone as human governments endure, they cannot be denied the power of self-preservation, as that question is presented here.”

So our first conclusion is this: The First Amendment might apply with some conditions to foreigners, and based on Supreme Court precedent this is literally one of those conditions.

Continue reading “”

The answer is “Hubris”

The question not being asked.

This Autumn has been rough for the Southeast. First, Hurricane Helene ripped up Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas, and then Hurricane Milton hit a different part of Florida and tore it up.

And the season isn’t over yet.

Tilting At Windmills is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

By now, you may have already heard about what happened down in Florida and may well have happened elsewhere. It turns out that personnel working for FEMA knocking on doors to see if people were eligible for federal funds were told to skip the homes of obvious Trump supporters.

After publication of this story, a FEMA spokesperson told The Daily Wire it was “deeply disturbed” and “horrified” by the employee’s actions, and that it has “taken extreme actions to correct this situation.”

“While we believe this is an isolated incident, we have taken measures to remove the employee from their role and are investigating the matter to prevent this from happening ever again,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “The employee who issued this guidance had no authority and was given no direction to tell teams to avoid these homes and we are reaching out to the people who may have not been reached as a result of this incident.”

“This is a matter that we take extremely seriously and we are doing everything we can to make sure all survivors receive support from FEMA. To date, we have helped over 365,000 households impacted by both Hurricanes Helene and Milton in the state of Florida and have provided over $898 million in direct assistance to survivors.”

“We are horrified that this took place and therefore have taken extreme actions to correct this situation and have ensured that the matter was addressed at all levels. Helping people is what we do best and our workforce across the agency will continue to serve survivors for as long as it takes.”

That’s all fine and well.

Plus, the individual responsible for that, Marn’i Washington, has been fired from her position and the case has been referred to the Office of Special Counsel. That means she faces potential prosecution for her actions, which should most definitely happen.

However, while people are focusing on what happened—and for understandable reasons—I can’t help but ask the question no one else seems to be asking. Why did she think she could get away with it?

Continue reading “”

Question O’ The Day
Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?
Answer O’ The Day:
Yes

If we can thank Senator McConnell for one thing, it’s keeping this moron hack off the Supreme Court

AG Garland slams dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case: ‘Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake?’

Attorney General Merrick Garland suggested Tuesday that his lengthy legal career makes it unlikely that he illegally appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate alleged crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, ruling that the special counsel was not lawfully appointed by Garland – a determination that made the Biden administration official bristle.

“For more than 20 years I was a federal judge. Do I look like someone who would make that basic mistake about the law? I don’t think so,” Garland said in an interview with “NBC Nightly News.”

The attorney general noted that his “favorite room” in the Justice Department is its law library to hammer down the point.

“Our position is, it’s constitutional and valid. That’s why we appealed,” Garland added.

“I will say that this is the same process of appointing special counsel as was followed in the previous administration, Special Counsel [John] Durham and Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller, in multiple special counsels over the decades going back to Watergate and the special prosecutor in that case,” he said.

“Until now every single court, including the Supreme Court, that has considered the legality of a special counsel appointment has upheld it.”

In her July 15 order, Cannon ruled that Congress was required to appoint “constitutional officers” and the legislature was also needed to approve spending for such a prosecution.

“That role cannot be usurped by the executive branch or diffused elsewhere — whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not,” she wrote in her 93-page ruling.

The judge determined that “Special Counsel Smith’s investigation has unlawfully drawn funds from the Indefinite Appropriation.”

“The Special Counsel’s office has spent tens of millions of dollars since November 2022, all drawn unconstitutionally from the Indefinite Appropriation,” Cannon wrote.

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump earlier this month, arguing that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed by the attorney general.

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible. The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed,” she added.

Smith’s team is expected to file a brief related to their appeal in the case, which charged the 78-year-old Republican nominee for president with improperly hoarding sensitive and classified White House documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence after his presidency, by the end of August.

Trump faced up to 450 years in prison if convicted on all counts in the case.