It appears that the problem with the Internet in Palau resulted in the deletion of the original post on the decision in Virginia. I did not want to delete any discussion so I am keeping this post. I am in Guam now with better Internet access. Virginia federal district court Judge Leonie Brinkema granted a preliminary injunction which requires a higher showing for the challengers. In that sense, this is an obvious victory but it could also be an opportunity for the Trump Administration. I believe that the Brinkema decision might be the better option for the Administration to appeal given its focus on religious discrimination and its reliance on campaign statements and the bizarre statements of Rudy Giuliani.
I have previously expressed my skepticism over the use of Trump’s campaign statements as a determinative or even substantial element to the interpretation of the executive order. The opinion states “The evidence in this record focuses on the president’s statements about a ‘Muslim ban’ and the link Giuliani established between those statements and the (executive order) . . . Based on that evidence, at this preliminary (stage) of the litigation, the Court finds that the Commonwealth has established a likelihood of success on the merits.” That creates a target rich environment for appeal.
Moreover, I consider the religious challenge to face the most significant opposing precedent and textual difficulty. If that is the case, the Administration could consider fast tracking the appeal to the Fourth Circuit, which is generally more favorable than the Ninth Circuit for the government. Of course, this could become moot with a rewriting of the order. I have previously stated that I view this order as poorly written, poorly executed and poorly defended by the Administration.
Brinkema’s statement on limited power is compelling but it does not fully answer the question presented in my view:
Maximum power does not mean absolute power. Every presidential action must still comply with the limits set by Congress’ delegation of power and the constraints of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. It is a bedrock principle of this nation’s legal system that “the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution.” The Federalist No. 81, at 481 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1999). Defendants have cited no authority for the proposition that Congress can delegate to the president the power to violate the Constitution and its amendments and the Supreme Court has made it clear that even in the context of immigration law, congressional and executive power “is subject to important constitutional limitations.” Zadvidas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001).
This is premised on the notion of religious discrimination as driving the motive and affect of the order. The Administration could respond that there is an equally countervailing danger in the exceeding of judicial authority in this case. Unlike the Ninth Circuit case, this is not an order with national scope but politically it could be viewed as the best option for a reversal. Legally, however, it still needs to either moot or reverse the Ninth Circuit case.
163 thoughts on “Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction of Executive Order In Virginia”
How long have you been a fan of marital rape and wife beating, Yasmine? Personally I’m not a fan of a legal system that is entirely incompatible with our Constitution since Sharia calls for apostates to be killed, provides for honor killings, and non-Muslims are not equal before the law and have fewer rights than Muslims. But for now I’m going to focus on the inferior status of women (according to Muhammad a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s because of her mental and moral deficiencies, and I can quote him if you dispute that but this comment will be quote heavy enough as you will see).
“An Unjust Doctrine of Civil Arbitration:
Sharia Courts in Canada and England
Ecclesiastical law has long been accepted as a form of civil arbitration in Western
Democracies. The result of ecclesiastical trials is legally binding and enforceable.
Nevertheless, the dangers associated with legal ecclesiastical rulings became manifest
when Islamic groups pushed for the recognition of Sharia as a doctrine of arbitration.
After a trial in Canada, fears with regard to the safeguarding of human rights under
Sharia surfaced among Ontarians. Premier Dalton responded with a ban on all
ecclesiastical arbitration in the province of Ontario. In England, fears of gender-
biased discrimination and female coercion ignited a similar controversy concerning
Sharia’s legitimacy. Here, we examine the root causes of such concerns in England,
argue that Sharia is a dangerous doctrine of civil arbitration, and advocate for its
rejection from binding arbitration.”
It’s unfortunate that Canada is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the reason why ecclesiastical has long been accepted as a form of civil arbitration in Western democracies is because Christian and Jewish legal systems have long acknowledged the supremacy of their nation’s laws. This is why the Beth Din courts in Canada have operated without controversy or complaint for a century. But then came the almost non-existent (in the west) ideology of Islam, and sharia courts do not acknowledge that they must abide by man-made laws. This is not a matter of conjecture. It’s an established fact that Sharia courts in Britain (really everywhere they’ve been established, but the above paper only discusses the evidence coming out of the UK) will not abide by the nation’s laws when they conflict with Sharia (hence the conclusion of the linked paper).
Allah says there is no such thing as marital rape.
“Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers.”
According to Sharia wives have no right to object to their husbands’ demands for sex, no more than a field has a right to object to being plowed anytime the farmer wants to plow it. As Muhammad later pronounced, according to the ahadith, if a married couple are riding a camel and the husband demands sex, she has to have sex with him there and then. On the back of a moving camel. As you may gather, the above verse also covers sexual positions. It doesn’t matter if they wife doesn’t like to be “plowed” the way her husband wants to “plow” her. She’s no more than a farmer’s field according to the Quran.
Of course the fact that there is no such thing as marital rape per any school of Sharia simply reflects the fact that Allah created women inferior to men. Which is why Allah says men not only can but have a religious obligation to beat their wives if the husband merely fears his wife may become disobedient. By, say, refusing to drop whatever she’s doing and have sex with him whether she wants to or not.
“Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey h[once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.”
There is a ton of evidence that the estimated 85 Sharia courts whose decisions are recognized recognized as legally binding forms of alternate dispute resolution routinely disregard British laws such as the laws against rape (there is no exemption for rape within marriage), the laws against spousal abuse, and the Equities Act which stipulates that women must be treated equally under the law.
Because no Muslim cleric acting as a judge, or qadi, is going to subordinate Sharia to man-made law. That would be the unforgivable sin of Shirq; assigning partners to Allah. That would be saying that Parliament or British courts are equivalent to, or superior to, Allah as lawmakers.
So Shariah courts routinely deny divorces to women who are beaten or raped by their husbands. That isn’t grounds for divorce in a Sharia court, whether the court is in Tehran or in Liverpool. As one researcher and academic who was allowed to observe (but not record) Sharia court proceedings, a Dutch atheist named Machteld Zee, commented, it’s not that these judges are mean. She found them to be very nice. It’s just that they don’t have any choice in the matter.
“It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.”
Once Allah and his messenger have decided a matter, NO Muslim can have any choice in the matter. And since Allah has ordained that there is no such thing as marital rape and Allah tells husbands to beat their wives for rebelling against their authority over them then the clerics can’t say their husbands were wrong for doing so. In fact, like the Sharia courts in Iran or Saudi Arabia, the Sharia courts in the UK will tell the women who complain of their abuse at the hands of their husbands that they simply got what they deserved. If they don’t want to get beaten they should learn to be obedient. Same goes for forced sex. If they obeyed their husbands, then their husbands wouldn’t have to forcibly rape them. Here they are simply following Muhammad’s example, and just like with Allah when his messenger has decided something Muslims have no choice in the matter. As it says in Surah 33:36 and several others It’s an act of apostacy for a Muslim to disobey the clear rulings of Allah and his messenger and anyone who does is going to go to hell.
Nice guys or not, no cleric acting as a qadi on a Sharia court is going to apostatize and jump into the express lane for hell when making a ruling.
Sahih al-Bukhari – Book of Dress – (23) Chapter: Green clothes
” Narrated `Ikrima:
Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger came, `Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When `AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, `Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Messenger! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa`a.” Allah’s Messenger said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that `AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,”
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 5825
In-book reference : Book 77, Hadith 42
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 7, Book 72, Hadith 715
(deprecated numbering scheme)”
This is more than a twofer. It’s like scoring a home run with the bases loaded, so many lessons can we learn from it. According to Muhammad, when a husband beats his wife it’s her own fault. Aisha, the “Mother of the faithful,” says no women had it worse in Arabia then the believing women. That means pagan women had it better than Muslim women. So much for those who want to claim that Muhammad was a champion of women’s rights. His favorite wife couldn’t even agree to that. And some people will try to claim that a husband can only beat his wife “lightly.” Usually people trying trying to convince unsuspeting Western audiences ignorant of the tenets of Islam into thinking that when the Quran says a husband can beat his wife, the beating is really only symbolic. This beating wasn’t symbolic; her husband beat the crap out of her until she was badly bruised, and that was ok with the prophet of Allah. Note Muhammad didn’t say a word of rebuke to her husband for giving her such a heavy beating.
“Extreme vetting” should include close questioning about an individual’s attitudes toward Sharia. Of course, like the advocates for Sharia courts did in Britain, we can expect a certain percentage of visa applicants from any and all Muslim countries to lie. That is quite simply what they did when they agreed to abide by the various UK laws they routinely ignore, and when they agreed their jurisdiction would not extend to criminal matters. And in fact they agreed to refer all criminal matters they encountered durlng the course of their proceedings, such as wife beating and marital rape, to government law enforcement agencies. They simply won’t do it. And since they insisted, and for some insane reason the UK government agreed, that they operate without third party supervision they have been getting away with it for years.
But if the people who are vetting the applicants are properly trained they can often detect lying. Particularly if the questions are worded in ways the applicants didn’t expect. Even skilled liars can be tripped up when they’re surprised. Also we need to add advocating for Sharia in any form to the list of activities which will get visa/green card holders deported, and to to the list of activities that will strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship and get them deported. There are a number of activities that will, if engaged in, will do so for up to 10 years after they’ve been naturalized. Applicants from any Muslim country must sign documents acknowledging these consequences under penalty of perjury (a five year felony) for lying and/or swearing false oaths. This has happened too many times for us to tolerate it any longer.
“She repeatedly interrupted the defendant, Faisal Shahzad, to spar with him over his interpretation of the Koran, his invocation of a Muslim warrior in the Crusades and, above all, the relevance of any of it to the life sentence that hung over him like the dozen United States deputy marshals who guarded the prisoner in court.
And after the judge formally sentenced Mr. Shahzad to life in prison, she left him a parting shot: “I do hope that you will spend some of the time in prison thinking carefully about whether the Koran wants you to kill lots of people.””
Umm, it does want Muslims to do exactly that, lady.
“He said he was getting to that, his motivations, when the judge asked, “Didn’t you swear allegiance to this country when you became an American citizen?”
He smiled like a boy caught in a fib, and said as much: “I did swear, but I did not mean it.”
“You took a false oath?”
Of course he lied. As Muhammad said, “All war is deceit.” Muhammad allowed his followers to lie to get close to mere critics in order to assassinate them.
Jami` at-Tirmidhi – The Book on Jihad – (5) Chapter: What Has Been Related About The Permission To Lie And Be Deceitful In War
Two things about this first. While there is dispute among the four extant schools of Sunni Jurisprudence as to whether Sunan ibn Majah or Muwatta Malik are among the Sahih Sittah, the “reliable six” canonical.authoritative ahahadith collections (as one might suspect the Maliki madhab of fiqh is alone in preferring Muwatta Malik) there is no dispute among the four schools about Jami’ at-Tirmidhi. All of them accept it as authoritative. Not as authoritative as the two Sahihs, but a sahih hadith from this collection is just as valid as any other sahih hadith. Also, the Muslims have a much wider interpretation of what constitutes war and an unprovoked attack on the ummah.
“Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah :
That the Messenger of Allah said: “War is deceit.”
[Abu ‘Eisa said:] There are narrations on this topic from ‘Ali, Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Aishah, Ibn ‘Abbas, Abu Hurairah, Asma’ bint Yazid bin As-Sakan, Ka’b bin Malik and Anas bin Malik. This Hadith is Hasan Sahih.
Grade : Sahih (Darussalam)
Reference : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1675
In-book reference : Book 23, Hadith 6
English translation : Vol. 3, Book 21, Hadith 1675″
Sahih al-Bukhari – Book of Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi) – (15) Chapter: The killing of Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf
” Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah:
Allah’s Messenger said, “Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Messenger! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka`b and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Ka`b said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.” (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Ka`b said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka`b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the ‘Arabs?” Ka`b said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you.” Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Ka`b that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Ka`b at night along with Ka`b’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Ka`b invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Ka`b replied, “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.” His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka`b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as ‘Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and `Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka`b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. ” have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka`b replied. “I have got the best ‘Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka`b “Will you allow me to smell your head?” Ka`b said, “Yes.” Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka`b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka`b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi`) was killed after Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf.”
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4037
In-book reference : Book 64, Hadith 84
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 369
(deprecated numbering scheme)”
Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf was the leader of a Jewish community near Medina. There was no state of war between them and the Muslim community as far as he knew. But he composed a derogatory poem about Muhammad and the Muslims. This is how he “hurt Allah and his prophet.” In case you’ve wondered why drawing cartoons or putting Muhammad on the Charlied Hebdo justifies murder, it’s because of Muhammad’s example. I can cite numerous other cases where Muhammad considered criticism to be the same as a violent attack, and assassinating his critics to be a valid “military” response to the “attack. And if his followers have lie and swear false oaths like the Times Square bomber need to lie and swear false oaths to get the job done that is OK with Allah’s prophet. And once Allah or his messenger have decided a matter then no good Muslim can disagree.
As long as many Muslims believe they are at war with us, and according to the authoritative Islamic sources that will be until judgement day, then we have to screen out those who are coming here to carry out that command. Whether through violence or through subversion.
We should have no Muslim immigration from any Muslim majority country until we have the tools to deal with the Shariah supremacists. We also need to remember that many Muslims want to move here to get away from that BS. So we also need to ban all Saudi funding of Mosques. 80% of US Mosques are funded by the Saudis, and preach Wahhabi hate. That’s exactly what many Muslim immigrants want to get away from. Those are welcome. The would-be Muslim immigrants who want to bring it with them are not. Rich oil states who want to import it using their petrodollars must be barred from doing so.
It’s really too bad that the Saudis struck oil. That, more than any US policy or Western military action has caused the rise in Islamic terrorism. Before the Saudis were rich enough to spread their hateful political Islam under the guise of religion there was a sort of folk Islam that really was peaceful. At least 85% percent of Muslims can’t read Arabic, and there were few transliterations of the Quran into other languages. So their non-Saudi trained, non-Wahhabi local imams and Sheikhs did preach a form of Islam that was peaceful and tolerant, from Africa to Indonesia. And since there was no Quran in their language, and no internet, how would they have any reason to believe otherwise? Unfortunately you can’t put the Saudi genie back into the bottle. But we at least can recognize it and deal with the threat with our eyes wide open.
I believe there is a strong case to be presented on appeal to a fully staffed Supreme Court later in 2017, in regards to questionable claims that Muslims subscribing to Islamist ideology deserve full protection under the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause.
The key to this win is first establishing the fact that there is a schism going on within Islam, pitting Reformist-Secular Muslims against Orthodox-Supremacist Islamists. If campaign statements are admissible evidence of intent, then Trump’s Youngstown OH speech pf Aug 15th 2016 should be entered as clearer evidence of intent that the outrage expressed just after San Bernadino massacre.
The Youngstown speech makes a promise, if elected, to impanel a Commission on Radical Islam, whose job it will be to come up with a rubric which acknowledges the schism within Islam, and operationally differentiates (for official use) Muslims who are Reformist-Seculars from Orthodox-fundamentalist Islamists.
This rubric then is to put to use in both foreign policy and in immigration. The speech clearly indicates that the US will take sides in the schism dividing Muslims, allying with the Reformists. This is proof of intent that there be no blanket “Muslim ban”, but something more selective based on rejection of Political Islam as a protectable “religion” under the 1st Amendment, while still embracing Reformist Muslims. The argument is cemented in evidence that many voices within Political Islam have declared war on the US, and expressed aspirations to defeat or subjugate the US.
The argument then reaches a climax with the acts of war perpetrated on Americans and the US by Political Islamists, and the inculcation of youth brought up in Political Islam to hate Americans and be ready to make jihad.
Once the schism within Islam is admitted as fact, and the tenets of Political Islam are examined before the Court, and compared to the tenets of Reformist Muslims, the Court will have to side with the Government’s position that there was no intent to ban ALL Muslims, but rather that Muslims may be subsetted under official policy without offense to the Establishment Clause.
I agree with you about the schism, but unfortunately you have your terminology wrong. The Orthodox-supremacist Muslims are the reformists. People keep saying Islam needs to have the the equivalent to the Protestant reformation. Unfortunately the “Islamic Martin Luthers” have been ibn Hanbal (late 8th century to mid 9th century), ibn Taymiyyah (mid 13th to early 14th century), abd al ibn Wahhab in the 18th century, Muhammad Yaqub Nanautawi in the 19th century, Muhammad Ilyas Kandhlawiand in the 19th and 20th centuries, and Sayyid Qutb in the 20th century.
Like Martin Luther demanding that the church purge itself of unbiblical concepts such as indulgences and purgatory and return to it’s roots, so did these Muslim reformers. They said that that Islam needed to cleanse itself of all that was not Sunnah. All the un-Islamic concepts that had crept in despite having no basis in the Quran and were not part of the Islam that their prophet had professed needed to be purged, and Islam needed to return to its roots.
The Sunni terrorists we are dealing with are Salafis. Salafi means “pious ancestor” and they want the entire Muslim world to return to the “pure” form of Islam as practiced by Muhammad and the first three generations of Muslims.
The problem with Islam is not that it hasn’t had a “Protestant reformation” and desperately needs one. The problem with Islam is that it has had too many.
Muhammad Ilyas Kandhlawi. I don’t know how the “and” became attached to the end of his name.
OK, Steve, the terminology is confusing and non-standardized.
What adjective(s) would you attach to describe Muslims who want to have individual rights, women’s rights, religious freedom, elected leaders who are accountable to the people, secular law, and whose version of Islam is compatible with the US Constitution?
Don’t get upset. I wasn’t criticizing you. I was pointing out that when you have a “protestant reformation” type movement, a return to basics, the results will be different depending on the content of the religion’s theology.
An fundamentalist Muslim kills infidels in the name of Allah. A fundamentalist Jain only eats fruit as he or she won’t kill even a plant, drinks water through a gauze filter lest the Jain accidentally ingest a living creature, and uses a whisk broom to sweep off a seat so as not to accidentally crush a tiny living creature.
Reformist movements in Islam have a long history, and a dismal record of producing anything resembling tolerance. But please note, I did agree with you entirely that there is a schism between the two types of Muslims you describe. You are entirely correct, and in fact the split is nearly 50-50.
“- Professor Ruud Koopmans of the Netherlands warned the EU on Monday to block the entry of any refugees whose identity cannot be categorically confirmed
– Koopmans said of the 1billion adult Muslims in the world, half are conservative
– He claimed that of these 500million conservative Muslims, at least – and probably more – than 50million are willing to sanction violence
-The migration researcher stressed that not every one of them was ready to exert violence directly ”
(I don’t particularly find the idea that 50 million Muslims are willing to aid and abet the terrorists but that not every one of them would commit terrorism personally particularly comforting.)
Ultimately it doesn’t matter what I’d call them; that’s up to them. If it were up to me I would probably call the liberal Muslims the “Meccan Muslims.” The Sudanese religious scholar Mahmoud Muhammad Taha preached a brand of Islam, the Second Message of Islam, which advocated for exactly the kind of Islam you are talking about r.e. women’s rights, religious freedom, etc. He believed that the violent, later Medinan Surahs were only for a particular time and place and for use only against particular peoples, (similar to the Jewish/Christian understanding of the Old Testament exhortations to violence) and that their time had passed and Islam needed to return its earlier, peaceful, more tolerant Meccan period Surahs to a place of primacy.
Unfortunately the Sudanese government executed him as a heretic in 1985.
If I was Trump I would pursue a Two State Solution here.
First, I would issue a series of new Executive Orders which expressly revoke the prior one’s so that there is nothing on the table for the existing court cases.
Second, several Executive Orders would address different catagories of people with or without visas trying to get in.
Third, a new Executive Order would recast all programs for entertaining visa requests. Each applicant will have to take a lie detector test and provide all aspects of proof of birth, residency, parents, jobs, tribes they are part of, religion, criminal history, school history and much more.
Fourth, bar all applications and deny them for former residents of the seven territories named in the Trump EO issued recently. America does not need people from Yemen right now. Or Syria.
Fifth, review the Green Card of every person who is outside the border who wishes to come back in. And revoke Green Cards of those who have been gone for two months. Revoke the Green Card of anyone who has recently visited a pirate territory or any al Qaeda or ISIS territory.
Sixth, create an on-line intelligence gathering system and track all those who yak about terror. That includes any American citizen.
This Judge needs to be impeached. “Religious” violation of Constitutional rights? Yeah, some person living in Yemen has a Constitutional right to get on a plane, land at LaGuardia and bomb the federal courthouse because they believe Allah Acbar or somesuch feces.
But don’t let the facts get in the way.
So what? There are more Republicans in Hollywood than people think. And they have to hold their get-togethers in secret if they want to work again in that town.
Again, so what if there are more Republicans in government that people think. First of all, it doesn’t tell you how they will vote; I know many people who claimed to be Republicans who supported Clinton in 2016. Colin Powell is a registered Republican, and I’m convinced the only reason he remains one is he likes the fact he can get on TV anytime he wants because he’s the media’s go-to Republican who consistently supports Democrats and consistently bad mouths Republicans. There are a lot of such Republicans in DC. And the most important, really the only, relevant fact is money. Very few government workers at all levels make personal contributions to candidates. Still, federal government workers who do make contributions give far more to Democrats than Republicans. The big money comes from government employee unions. Eight out of nine federal employee unions contribute more to Democrats than Republicans. In six out of nine cases far more; over 75% of their contributions go to Democrats.
“…Political Donations from Federal Unions and Federal Interest Groups
Federal employee unions are usually thought of as providing support and favorable publicity for Democrats and criticizing Republicans. The actual dollar amounts spent for each political party generally support this conclusion. The chart below shows how federal employee unions and organizations, including Postal Service organizations, donated money during the 2016 election cycle.
…Political Donations from Federal Employees
The largest total donations were from State Department employees where Hillary Clinton previously served as Secretary of State. More than 94% of donations from employees in this agency went to Democrats. The smallest amount was from the Department of Energy, but 93.7% went to Democrats. The Department of Labor had the greatest percentage of donations going to Democrats. 98.8% of these donations were to Democratic party candidates.
Agencies likely to benefit from a Trump administration include the Department of Defense, Homeland Security and Department of Veterans Affairs. 65% of Defense contributions went to Democrats, the lowest percentage among major agencies. 75% of Homeland Security donations went to Democrats.
In the Department of Justice, the agency responsible for investigating the Clinton email scandal, 91.6% of donations went to Democrats. $346,125 was donated to Mrs. Clinton from the Justice Department.
– See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2016/12/21/tallying-political-donations-from-federal-employees-and-unions/#sthash.qWOHljSE.dpuf”
Your survey is entirely meaningless. Since the vote is secret we can’t know how many of those Republicans responding to it are Colin Powell-style Republican Hillary supporters. No doubt more than you think. Political contributions are not secret. With the vast majority of federal employees supporting Democrats whether through personal campaign contributions or through their union dues it doesn’t mean a damned thing if more federal workers told some people taking a survey that they’re Republicans than many people think.
One final “So what?”
Facts do matter. You continue to discredit yourself by dealing in irrelevancies instead of facts.
Clearly you wouldn’t know a fact is one bit you on your arse.
Yeah, claimed party affiliation is all kinds of meaningful when it comes to creatures of the federal government. Not.
– Colin Powell is a “Republican” who supported Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Hillary in 2016.
A charitible description of Gen. Powell’s affiliations and loyalties would be that he is “flexible”.
I’ll skip the other desciptions that could apply to Gen. Powell.
How could anyone not realize govt. employees are overwhelmingly Dem, from city, to county, to state to Federal govt.? I doubt there are any but maybe a few Republicans employed by the City of Chicago or Cook County.
City employees here are mostly Republicans.
Reading these comments is like eating a plate of earthworms.
Just curious, how do you know what eating a plate of earthworms is like?
According to various accounts I have read, both the White House general counsel and the acting Solicitor General are Jones Day alumni. Attorneys from Jones Day filed an amicus brief on behalf of opponents of the immigration ban shortly before the government’s paperwork was due, leading the acting Solicitor General to recuse himself at the last minute. Whether that was ethically required is an open question, but it was likely an appropriate exercise of discretion. So the White House was left scrambling to some extent. But it is pure speculation to suggest that different lawyers would have produced a different result. The government has many outstanding lawyers at its disposal.
My view remains that the President should remind himself that the legal battle is not about him, withdraw and replace the order and eliminate the litigation by mooting it.
“The government has many outstanding lawyers at it’s disposal.” For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that’s true. However, the vast majority of career DOJ attorneys are Dem. That’s the case for all branches of federal govt. Well, the Bureau of Prisons, a subdivision in the DOJ, may be an exception. Dem establishment, as well as most of Rep establishment, are adamantly anti-Trump. I’m not sure if you intelligent establishment people see that and lie to yourself, or if you genuinely aren’t savvy enough to understand this basic fact.
Too many government entities have become politicized and polarized, that are supposed to be unbiased.
Why isn’t Chaffetz investigating Trump and Flynn? Because he is a republican.
What is the difference between Trump and Obama? The nation, and President Obama, had a very curiously high tolerance for egregious wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton. Suddenly, when she took office, the going rate for her husband’s speeches skyrocketed. It also fell when she lost her bid for President. And curiously, foreign governments were able to circumvent campaign finance contributions by merely paying millions for a short speech by an ex-President…whose wife was running for office. And then of course the server, and the uranium mine, lying about Benghazi, wiping her server clean when she was under subpoena, etc, etc.
General Flynn made ambiguous remarks about Russian sanctions to the Russian ambassador. Incoming administrations may speak with ambassadors. However, General Flynn failed to mention that sanctions were even tangentially discussed, even though he made no commitments, and was rather diplomatic with the Russian. That created a trust issue. After reviewing the data and getting input from several sources, Trump accepted Flynn’s resignation. I was sorry to see Flynn’s lapse in judgement, and I do not understand it. All he had to do, in my understanding, was tell Pence that the subject had come up and he’d been diplomatic about it. Why fail to mention it? And it draws to mind how jobs can hang on a knife edge in the military or government, and such a minor thing as a topic of discussion can get you fired. It’s the way of the intelligence community and some levels of government…unless you are a Clinton royalty.
Compare and contrast to the utter lack of any consequences whatsoever expected or required of Ms Clinton. She literally could destroy evidence while under subpoena, and nothing happened. The media and her supporters were fine with that.
And of course, there are several important issues. The recording of the conversation shows that we spied on the Russians and disclosed the information to the world. It also revealed that a politicized employee leaked the information regarding a wire tap between a National Security Advisor and an ambassador to the public, and that the wiretap was not supposed to be reviewed without a warrant. Again, it’s important that the light of public scrutiny be shined on such issues, both on Flynn’s omission and on the deep politicization of government agencies.
Nicholas Kristof @NickKristof 15m15 minutes ago
We urgently need an independent panel modeled on the 9/11 Commission to investigate #Kremlingate and report back ASAP.
My preference is for the EO to be redrafted and fix its issues. But I also believe that it will end up in court no matter what, because every move Trump makes to secure our border or fight Islamic terrorism will be opposed. Every nomination he makes will be opposed. Every time he defends his daughter he will be opposed.
And I think it will work out for the Dems just as well as it did when the Republicans were viewed as obstructionist. Of course the Dems should work against Trump when his actions oppose their core platform, but if they go scorched Earth and try to obstruct his every move it will blow up in their face. And if they have politicized every bureaucracy in the government to create a Super Ruling Party across all separation of powers, then it will blow up in their face.
Most of his corrupt nominees got through including the Goldman foreclosure guy.
“And if they have politicized every bureaucracy in the government to create a Super Ruling Party across all separation of powers, then it will blow up in their face.”
They have and it will.
This is our opportunity to stop a tyranny. Obama created an uber presidency, discussed many times and at length on this blog, and defied the separation of powers. He and Hillary Clinton deeply politicized the DOJ, State, the EPA, the IRS, and NSA, with Clinton rewarding donors with jobs at State. Obama and his predecessors politicized the SCOTUS by appointing justices who view the Constitution as a living document, to be bent to their will and poetical beliefs. Can you imagine if Trump appointed far right conservatives who viewed the Constitution as a living document that means what they think it means, without requiring an Amendment? There would be riots in the streets. But it’s all fine as long as it’s interpreted by a few Liberals wearing black robes. Can you imagine if he weaponized the IRS against Conservatives? We don’t want to become France during the Reign of Terror, when the government was weaponized against dissenters, and it kept changing sides as one ruler after another fell.
An originalist protects us from changing our laws, circumventing Congress, via lifetime appointments of a tiny group of people. God forbid the bench get taken over by a majority of one party over another, all who think they can interpret the Constitution however they like.
Betsy Devos was well rewarded and so were many of the plutocrats that are working in the Trump administration.
There is surrounding yourself with advisors that you trust, in positions that can end with your Presidency and there is letting people buy jobs at State, which will remain politicized long after you’re gone, by giving you money.
Where do you think Obama found his cabinet members? Scouring homeless shelters around the country?
Net worths circa 2010:
Hillary Clinton $31.3M
Susan Rice $36.4M
Timothy Geithner $3.3M (voted “man of the people” when he worked at Goldman Sachs)
Eric Holder net worth $6.3M
Robert Gates $5.9M
Kathleen Sebelius $2.8M
And the beat goes on.
Please keep s****ing where you eat and in your own bed, anon.
Putin, the old KGB thug, judoka, and gambler, knows that that a strong man can win with a weak hand against a weak man with a stronger hand. Consequently the strong man with the weaker hand thrives on creating chaos; atomizing his opponents.
That’s what’s going on here. Putin didn’t try to get Trump elected. He wanted to delegitimize the the results of the election. Thanks to the useful fools on the left he’s succeeding brilluantly. If he can create divisions in the US, in NATO, he can do far more to achieve his goals because Russian is weak. So, divide and conquer.
The left, scum of the earth, are his allies, not Trump. And they’re dancing to his tune exactly like he choreographed the ballet.
Maybe the corrupt Goldman Sachs government will blow up in Trump’s face as it did in Bush’s.. Their stock is at a record high due to Trump’s actions.. Have wages gone up?I Don’t think so.
Wages need to be tied to the performance of GS stock.😉
When Goldman Sachs stock goes up, wages need to go up.
And when GS stock declines, wages should be lowered.
That may solve part of anon’s concerns.
Anon, who did Timothy Geitner work for? Or Rubin?
You degrade your own currency with your total partisanship combined with lack of analytical skill…..
If you have a problem with Goldman Sachs, fair enough. But dont try and make your GS opinion partisan. Thats just plan below the average IQ of this blog’s readership.
Drain the swamp Trump has set a record with six Goldman Sachs officials and it is verifiable.
About a dozen Goldman Sach execs made the trek to the Obama administration, so. 6
GS execs doesn’t set a record.
Don’t know how many GS execs will ultimately serve in the Trump administration, but I’m pretty sure readers will be updated as needed.😊
Meant readers HERE will be updated
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-12/trump-concerned-there-are-too-many-goldman-guys-his-team Even Trump knows it while at the same time he is considering hiring another one.
I think it is a reasonable criticism when one one has campaigned and ran ads against Goldman Sachs and then turns around and staffs up with many former officials. Well maybe those Goldman guys will prove to be more competent than some of the other lunatics that now occupy the white house. One crazy left today and there are many more to go.
Did you complain when Barack Hussein Obama was breaking his promises r.e. lobbyists?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-14/goldman-stock-hits-record-on-bets-trump-will-unleash-wall-street Poor Main St.
“Global markets in tailspin as Trump victory declared”.-
USAToday, Nov.8, 2016
The S&P has in fact been setting new highs this month.
Just interesting to observe the post-election market “mood swings.”
There’s a saying that the market has accurately predicted 10 out of the last 4 recessions….a “tribute” 😏to the record of the market as an accurate barameter or forecaster of the economy’s health.
“You gave to be crazy to be in the stock market”.
-Mike Royko column, Oct. 21, 1987.
I knew long before Royko’s column that I met that qualification, so I’ve been in the stock market for over 40 years.😊
“Have”, not “gave”.
Given that campaign contribution data from the FEC indicate that prosecutors are seventeen times as Republican as defense attorneys, your assertion seems, um, rather unlikely.
Perhaps you might link to a “savvy” source I was unable to find.
Good catch. The other guy just makes stuff up.
Fiver – your link discussed prosecutors, but the allegation was that DOJ was predominantly Democrat. Based on campaign contributions, it does appear to be correct.
“According to a review of donations made by those who listed their employer as the “U.S. Department of Justice” or “Department of Justice,” Clinton has received $26,151 in contributions since declaring her candidacy. That is nearly half of the overall $55,201 in donations given by DOJ employees to date for the 2016 elections.
DOJ employees have given $47,501 to Democratic candidates over the last ten months, or 86 percent of the $55,201 in donations on record. The amount does not include money that was sent to committees or Super PACs.
Republican candidates, by comparison, have received just $7,700 in contributions from Justice Department employees.”
I haven’t seen the data myself, so I take this with a grain of salt.
You’re welcome. And thanks for the link on prosecutors. It’s interesting to see how politics can differ between such a subset.
I’m sorry I somehow missed this earlier.
Donald Trump needs to take his cue from Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.
When federal district judge Dominick Augustin Hall made a ruling about something being unconstitutional when it wasn’t, Jackson ordered his troops to have Judge Hall arrested. The jurist was seized from his home in the dead of night and imprisoned, where he belonged.
When Lincoln was confronted with corrupt, lying judges, he attempted to arrest them. For example, in May or June 1861, Lincoln secretly ordered an arrest warrant for Roger B. Taney, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Lincoln didn’t follow through on Taney, but had he done so, he would have been a hero yet again for putting the squeeze on the scumbags like Taney attempting to hold America hostage to their anti-American, corrupt agendas.
That “something” was Andrew Jackson’s continuing a state of martial law even though the War of 1812 had already ended.
I’m sure many bootlickers were disappointed that the police state they so love and desire was challenged, but, hopefully, the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave will always have people like Judge Hall who will stand up to tyranny.
It doesn’t completely make up for the national embarrassment revealed by the surprising number of sniveling cowards so desperately waiting for a strong man to arrive and tell them what to do and think…
… but it certainly does help. Thank you for the inspiration. It’s especially good to remember now that our history includes many examples of such bravery in our continuing fight to be free.
Oh, but allowing mindless leftist political hack judges to control America and tell Americans what to do and think is just fine and dandy by you? Yeah, I get your agenda: Leftism, good. Freedom and safety for Americans, bad.
Andrew Jackson is hardly an exemplar of respect for the separation of powers or the rule of law.
Judge Hall was appointed by Presidents Jefferson and Madison who were Democratic-Republicans – as was General Jackson at the time.
Fighting a police state isn’t a matter of Left vs. Right. It’s a matter of Lions vs. Lambs.
Taney’s “anti-American, corrupt agenda” included finding Lincoln’s suspending habeas corpus without authorization from Congress unconstitutional. In the relatively recent Hamdi decision, a majority of justices of the Supreme Court signed opinions with dicta to the effect that the Constitution gives only Congress the power to suspend habeas corpus. I.e., Taney was right, and Lincoln was wrong.
lysias – the Constitution is what 5 SC justices say it is today.
And 5 SC justices said that on habeas Taney was right and Lincoln wrong. If you look at Taney’s argument, it looks conclusive.
lysias – you and I may disagree with the SC, but it is what they say it is.
Yeah, sure, Taney is the guy who said that a black person can only be a slave, is just property to be bought and sold, and has no rights as a person under the U.S. Constitution. But I guess Taney’s your kind of “Constitutional scholar.”
That was not the issue over which Lincoln tried to have Taney arrested.
Taney’s Dred Scott decision that I referred to occurred during James Buchanan’s presidency, several years before Lincoln became president. But Lincoln knew that Taney was a rotten scoundrel who should never have been appointed to the SC and that he was a serial violator of the law of the land, and that’s why Lincoln wanted to have him arrested when the opportunity arose. But the bottom line for you, lysias, is that Taney’s your kind of “Constitutional scholar.”
Congress passed legislation granting Lincoln the power to suspend habeas corpus and the great man never backed down threatening to imprison Taney who was sitting as a trial judge when he made his ruling.
Jonathan: I feel sorry for you. Defending Dumpster and his racist agenda is beneath the education you received. Nitpicking the Judge’s Order and suggesting an appeal to a “conservative” venue reflects poorly on you. As I’ve said before, I used to respect you. I haven’t for a long time. Now, I feel sorry for you because you have made clear that you are no scholar. Education is supposed to enlighten and elevate the human mind and spirit, not provide arguments to rationalize the indefensible. You and the spokeswitch feed at the same trough. How sad.
The guy is snorkeling in the south Pacific.
Spicer and the “spokewitch” lol Both are having a rough patch. One lies and then the other lies about the other one lying.
Keep up the good work. Conservatives appreciate you joining the effort to keep an eye on this administration, regardless of how poorly you kept an eye on the last. At this rate, every ounce of perceived executive overreach will be dragged through the courts thus bringing even more people to the conservative cause. Before you know it, the constitution’s negative liberties will once again mean something to the American people.
Natasha – butt hurt, are we?
What race is “Muslim?” Albanians, Indonesians, and Nigerians never knew they were the same race simply because they’re Muslims.
Rule of thumb; whenever anyone pronounces it racist to have informed debate on the unique dangers posed by the political, supremacist, and frankly genocidal ideology masquerading as a religion that is Islam, it’s obvious you are dealing with someone who is viciously, obstinately, hatefully ignorant of Islam.
There is a reason the seven countries on the Obama administration list (first promulgated in 2015) are Muslim majority countries. Because Muslims savagely persecute non-Muslims.
“Somalia’s underground Christian community is asking fellow believers worldwide to pray for their safety during Islam’s holy month of Ramadan.
The tiny Christian population is regularly persecuted by Islamic extremists. They are requesting that fellow Christians pray they can live in peace with their Muslim neighbors. Ramadan began Aug. 11 and ends on Sept. 9.
“We are called criminal and apostate. What is our crime? We are Christians! We suffer because of what we believe,” said a Somali Christian, whose name is withheld for security reasons, to Open Doors USA.
“Please pray for all Somali Christians who suffer persecution to not seek revenge but commit their case unto God.”
Religious zeal and extremist activity generally increase in Somalia during Ramadan, noted Open Doors, a Christian persecution watchdog. Many Christians in Somalia must pretend to be practicing Muslims in order to remain safe.
A Somali Christian shared that after the suicide bombing last month in Uganda, the believer had to attend a Friday prayer meeting at the local mosque.
“I was there because I need to blend in with the crowd. That saves my life, my family and my colleagues,” the Somali Christian said.
When the prayer leader praised those behind the suicide bombing, people at the mosque shouted “Allahu Akubar,” which means “God is great.” The Christian joined with them even though the believer did not agree with the action of the suicide bombers.
“But this is the normal way things are for the Christian community in Somalia,” the Christian noted.
Somalia is ranked No. 4 on the Open Doors World Watch List of the worst persecutors of Christians.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/somalias-christians-plead-for-prayers-during-ramadan-46353/#deFpJSvBu7QPftv1.99”
When the Arabs invaded Egypt over a millenium ago, Egypt was over 90% Christian, with nearly all the remainder being Jewish. Now it’s only 10% Christian. I don’t believe any Jews remain. Where did they all go? Most converted. Not because of the joys of Islam. But because the persecution of non-Muslims is not, as the article states, extremist. It’s mainstream Islam.
“You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient.”
And what does that make the People of the Scripture (mostly Jews and Christians).
“Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.”
Jews and Christians, and the pagans and members of any other religion who don’t accept Muhammad as a prophet, are lower than pigs and dogs. Allah then goes on to tell Muslims how they must treat non-Muslims.
“Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.”
Muslims are allowed to pretend to be the friends of non-Muslims if they are outnumbered in a non-Muslim land. The verse uses a form of the word taqiya, which means concealment. They are allowed to lie in that circumstance to conceal the danger they intend to pose when there are sufficient numbers of Muslims to carry it out. Here are a few. The danger is spelled out in hundreds of other verses. I always like to ask a skeptic who believes what he was told by Imams George Bush, Barack Obama, John Kerry, et al, to just open my Quran to a random page. Like cutting a deck of cards. With approximately 480 verses commanding Muslims to wage jihad (the only form of jihad discussed in the Quran and the ahadith is violent, military campaigns of subjugation against non-Muslims, if they have sufficient military strength then they ares supposed to wage offensive jihad simply because of what they believe) in a 441 page book it’s almost impossible to open it to a page where Allah isn’t commanding Muslims to commit violence against non-Muslims.
“Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people”
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
“They swear by Allah that they did not say [anything against the Prophet] while they had said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their [pretense of] Islam and planned that which they were not to attain. And they were not resentful except [for the fact] that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty. So if they repent, it is better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth any protector or helper.”
Muslims are the executors of Allah’s will on earth. They’re commanded to make the lives of non-Muslims such as the Christians and the Jews a living hell. After all Allah isn’t going to “punish them with a painful punishment in this world” himself. While it’s true that most Muslims are not terrorists and would never blow something up, it’s equally true that many if not most Muslims share Sharia-informed beliefs that apostates must be killed, adulterers stoned to death, and Muslims must have a higher status than non-Muslims, and persecute non-Muslims.
This is why the Rotherham sex abuse ring was entirely Muslim, their victims almost entirely non-Muslims (Allah also commands Muslims to persecute hypocrites, people who claim to be Muslims but who don’t do what Islam commands such as westernized Muslim girls who won’t wear the hijab and date non-Muslims). It’s why some of the men shouted “Allahu Akhbar” when they were convicted, an why their supporters did the same.
Yes, the court rooms were packed with supporters. Why did they have so many supporters? Because there is nothing “extremist” about these attitudes. It’s mainstream in Islam.
Good Day ….Natacha. “A Doctrine” ???? of what are you ???? in All due Respect….why are or are you not sitting in the white House Throne ????… I would very much love to read and comment on your World News Feeds. Your knowledge I see has far surpassed that of any other Human species…..of All time !
I couldn’t have said it better.
Oops. I replied to the wrong post. Ignore this.
I meant to reply to Natacha whom I agree with 100%. JT is a big let-down to the say the least.
Yasmine – on what great basis of knowledge and/or experience do you find JT to be a letdown?
Education is also supposed to teach you to try to understand the other side’s point of view.
Islam in but a race.
“The court applied the weakest, most easily passed constitutional test to Trump’s order,”
You mean they reviewed the statute and realized no questions were necessary as the EO was within the executive’s constitutional authority? Yes, that is correct. That would have been the easiest test to pass but then again the 9th doesn’t rule by that old timey constitution thingy.
The DOJ may have sent the most incompetent of attorneys because a competent one would have been overqualified for this court.
Justice: What evidence do you have that this Executive Order is non-discriminatory?
DOJ: What evidence do you have that you’ve read the statute? Or the constitution?
Justice: I’ll ask the questions here.
DOJ: GFY! Now if it pleases the court, I have an ambulance to chase.
Just how well did that work out for you the last time you argued before the District Court?
We’d love to read the transcript 😉
Proud to say I’ve only argued before two courts: King Neptune’s and the Chief Petty Officer’s Mess. Lost both using the very same tactic I posted above. And just like this DOJ attorney arguing before the 9th circuit, my fate was preordained.
I always wondered what a modern King Neptune’s court looks like. I’ll have to mess with my Navy buddies about it.
Also, Beat Navy!
“I always wondered what a modern King Neptune’s court looks like.”
There’s nothing too modern about it. And not even a war can interfere with it. During WWII the USN conducted crossing-the-line ceremonies even when steaming into waters to attack Japanese strongholds, within range of their land-based air forces. King Neptune and Davy Jones will not be denied.
I never had to contend with the Chief’s mess. My dad, the sainted Senior Chief, wanted his son to be an officer. And we both know the Senior Chief is never wrong. So I only had to deal with the Marine DIs who were the gatekeepers.
But I did lose my case in King Neptune’s court because I became a Naval Intelligence Officer. Clearly “Naval Intelligence” is an oxymoron. No such thing could possibly exist. I couldn’t argue with that logic. Guilty as charged.
Comments are closed.