Friends, the great state of Texas got a tentative win at the Supreme Court today, as the high court will allow its anti-illegal immigration law to take effect, meaning Texas can begin arresting "newcomers", which is apparently the new P.C. term for border hoppers. Lefties say that only the federal government can enforce immigration laws. Well, they say that now that a lefty is president -- wait a year and they might say something totally different! Conservatives say Texas is subject to "invasion" and has the right to defend itself. We won't know for months what the Supremes ultimately make of this matter on the constitutional merits, but for now Texas can start rounding up illegals and detaining them. My guess is Texas will run out of jail cells mighty quick! I can see the A.P. stories already. How much you wanna bet that the words "concentration camps" will figure prominently in mainstream media analysis?
In other news, Trump has dared to disagree -- publicly! -- with the great conservative thinker and editorialist, Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy. Whoa! Hey, Donald, you can commit all the felonies you like, but some things are sacred, no? What Trump said is that, as long as our NATO partners pay their own way, we should stay in NATO to help protect them. Well, you know what I think: our "partners" haven't needed our protection for decades, because their nemesis, the Soviet Union, no longer exists. Trump has repeatedly taken NATO to task, yes, but he hasn't been willing to pull the plug on America's membership in the alliance. I'd like to see him take his criticism of NATO to the logical conclusion, obviously, but of course I understand why, politically, it would be hard for DJT to follow my advice.
The Soviet Union still exists, and is now called Russia, led by the kindly "Red Tsar" V. Putin, also known in select circles as "Vladdy Daddy".
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: This Scotus is doing our country very much good! Had it endorsed the traitorously sham administration ,only in the breech ,of our immigration law by the present Federal administration, an irreconcilable confrontation might have manifested and use of force might have ensued.The antiamerican left which directs our pathetic President is motivated in this confrontation only by doctrine; Texas and redoubtable Governor Abbott, are motivated by material, actual, present and terribly objective circumstances.Its citizens are at intolerable hazard of property, security and life at the presumptuous pleasure of the absentee radical left in lala land DC.This is a direct clash of America and antiamerica and its no surprise that gutsyTexas stands for the right. To see Gov. Abbott take the oath on Jan.20, 2029; that's something to look to and work for!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Should the antiamerican left preempt the term "concentration camp" into their vast lexicon of reflexive condemnation we must pay great heed. After all, concentration camps are a subject on which radicals can speak with expertise. No doubt their plans for an extensive network of such oases in the southwest are well along just now against that great day when they realize full, irresistible power.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: OK well I guess this is a fluid situation. My understanding of today's events is that Scotus sent the case back down to a Circuit Court on procedural grounds in holding that the substance of the case yet merited thorough argument at that lower level. Upon receiving it, the Circuit Court made haste to direct Texas not to enforce this law for the time being. So, what is next? The Constitution appears to empower the states to take action in some ways usually reserved to the Federal Government when immediacy is critical. Will Texas yet procede on this principle? If China was to knock out our communications and simultaneously invade the California coast would not even politically correct Governor Hirsute take unilateral action to meet them? Too, surely those sections of the Constitution which reserve certain powers to the Federal Government at the very least implicitly ENJOIN the Federal Government to EXERCISE them dutifully, yes? No doubt this contradiction will return to Scotus, as well it should because beside the immediate harm being done the border states and the common sense people in dreamy "sanctuary" cities ,a perhaps historic Constitutional question is at contest here. If the Federal Government shirks a duty, may a consequently wronged state act unilaterally to seek relief, redress and /or Federal restraint from interference in their defense? Again, we must laud Texan fortitude, exemplified by its plucky Governor, for forcing this issue against an ever increasingly and presumptuously authoritarian and antiamerican leftist motivated, incipiently totalitarian national central "command". The Biden administration appears to assume it just peachy to say to Texas: " we will do as we please in this and if you don't like it, that's tough!" You bet it is, though not as these Feds mean it; Texans do not take kindly to being pushed around; that's flat!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: What a fascinating meeting of minds: DJT and Farage! Well, I think DJT's comments are creditable; he has "been there and done that" after all. In having been as blunt as to say to some apparently recalcitrant nations that there are circumstances under which we might not defend them he has raised this possibility for the first time. Some resentment of our military presence in some Nato countries may obtain; eg.perhaps in Germany? Might DJT's frankness motivate some countries to "call " DJT on this , perhaps for domestic political reasons or to commend themselves to still feared Russia? A street wise player like DJT might purpose an eventual withdrawal from Nato and see in these conversations a way to gradually and diplomatically bring it about. Of course there are many who think DJT incapable of such canny international finesse; yeah, that was thought of President Reagan too and he simply went ahead and won the Cold War without firing a shot.
ReplyDeleteModern Russia is a VERY POOR substitute for the USSR...although, to be fair, the quality of its hamburgers is way up.
ReplyDeleteMy my, Jack -- you see Abbott as a credible successor to Trump? Maybe. He's certainly one of the foremost conservatives in America today.
Oh, come now. Leftists would never build "concentration camps". "Mandatory enlightenment facilities" perhaps? "Demographic purification centers"?
Jack, it's a very fair question whether negligence in the performance of his duties has any legal consequences for a federal official, or for an entire federal administration. Could SCOTUS come up with a standard that could be applied to such officials, or such administrations? It would be hard, because every official, and every administration, falls short of the perfect performance of all relevant duties...
Hmm. Trump says that, if the Euroweenies don't pay up, we won't defend them. Most of them DON'T pay up, and never have, and never will, and all this was true in Trump's first term, and yet he never withdrew us from NATO. To me, Trump's rhetoric on NATO seems more than a little hollow. Sounds like "negotiation" to me -- not a serious change in policy.