Saturday, September 3, 2016

More Left Wing Tyranny

Once in a while I tune in to MSNBC. On the show AM Joy, with Joy Reid, she had four guests. The discussion centered on immigration. One guest, a conservative black man named Paris Dennard, said that Trump was not against immigration, but illegal immigration. After using the word "illegals" several times, another guest, Juan Hernandez, said he was insulted by the term "illegal." At which point the black host, Joy, intoned "I was going to say the same thing."

Mr. Dennard looked perplexed. Mr. Hernandez added: "I really appreciate using the right vocabulary." Excuse me? This is so typical of the left - first, easily insulted, and second, shutting down speech with which they disagree. Added Hernandez: "Nobody is illegal in this world," and "we're all G-d's children." Joy to Dennard: "This (her show) is like being in a family home. So when you're in this home, we ask that you not use terminology that offends people." I consider this to be an intellectual blog, with no use of expletives, but with this leftist enforced censorship I am tempted to say "#%&$ that!"

One residence hall at Rutgers University is considering a policy which encourages students to watch what they say, as part of a "Language Matters" campaign. Clearly, language does matter. There are laws regarding libel and slander. Judaism has many books on the subject of "lashon hara," which prohibits speech which, even if true, is meant to harm another, or carelessly harms another. But AM Joy and Rutgers are concerned with speech that offends those on the left. The Rutgers proposed policy warns against "micro assaults, micro insults, and micro invalidations."

Students are warned that "victims" (is anyone other than white males not a victim to the left?) may be affected "physically, emotionally (and) behaviorally," resulting in an increased "risk for illness and decreased immune system" (response). Students are to ask if what they are about to say is "true," "inspiring," "necessary" and "kind." Clearly, I would agree that people should not go out of their way to insult others. Good behavior would mandate not intentionally seeking to harm others - by word or by deed. Jewish law under lashon hara forbids even true speech if it is being said for an improper purpose.

But the left seeks to ban certain political speech, which is the worst type of censorship. As a country, we are governed by civil, not religious law. Our speech is governed first and foremost by the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, an example of prohibited speech at the Rutgers residence hall is the phrase "illegal aliens."

Milo Yiannopoulos is described by Wikipedia as a "British journalist, entrepreneur and technology editor for Breitbart News." He is also a gay man who regularly criticizes movements he sees as the "regressive left." He was invited by the "Young Americans for Liberty" we go again, Rutgers. Leftist students protested his presence on campus, describing his speech as "hate speech" and covering themselves in blood (although I am not sure of the symbolism in doing so).

In reply, Yiannopoulos said this: "These people do not believe in the free open exchange of ideas. They do not believe in intellectual inquiry, in full open frank discussion of ideas. They don't believe in the basis of classical liberalism, which is one of the founding principles of our civilization." To which I would only add: Amen. But wait, that word would probably be banned at Rutgers as well. Given the religious connotations of "Amen" I am sure that at least some atheists would be offended. So, allow me to rephrase: good for Milo for standing up for American values. But wait, not everyone here is an American, so those who are not American might be offended by that. Can I get a little help here?

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Trump on Immigration

This evening, Donald Trump gave his long awaited speech on immigration. His 10 point plan follows.

1. The US will build a wall at the southern border. 2. Trump will end the catch and release policy. Illegals will be detained until they can be deported. 3. There will be zero tolerance for criminal aliens; with Trump noting there are 2 million currently in the US. Trump plans on hiring 5000 more border patrol agents, putting them at the border. He will seek passage of Kate's law, with strong mandatory sentences for criminal aliens, followed by deportation.

4. Trump will block funding for sanctuary cities. I never did understand how local officials could get away with violating federal immigration laws. I do not think Obama or Clinton would allow local authorities to refuse to send tax dollars owed to the Feds. 5. Trump will revoke what he calls unconstitutional executive orders, and actually enforce the laws on the books. There's a concept. There will be no more amnesty for those here illegally.

6. Trump will suspend issuance of visas to any place where the US is unable to conduct an adequate screening process. Immigration from such areas will be suspended until we have a "proper and extreme vetting" procedure in place. Trump made specific reference to Syrian and Libyan refugees. He says that the Gulf states should pay for the creation of "safe zones" for those refugees - in their region. The US would be willing to supervise the process. He noted how Clinton wants to bring hundreds of thousands of those refugees here, with little ability to know what their true intentions are in coming here.

7. Trump will ensure that other countries actually take back those people that we deport. Currently, he says that 23 countries refuse to take their own citizens back. So, we just keep them. Incredibly, according to Trump, the State Department under Clinton kept issuing visas to people from those 23 countries. That's really showing them that the US will not be pushed around. 8. Trump wants to complete a biometric entry/exit visa tracking system, noting that in 2015 500,000 people overstayed their visas. Such a system, per Trump, was recommended by the 9/11 commission in order to enhance national security. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were still here in the US on expired visas.

9. Trump wants to put an end to the incentives for people to come here illegally - for healthcare, education, and various government benefits. He asserted that 62% of illegal immigrants use some form of government assistance. 10. Finally, he wants to see reform of the legal immigration laws in a way that will serve the best interests of the American people. I am not convinced, however, that his plan to renegotiate trade deals is either feasible or in the best interests of the US. He has not convinced me that it is the government's job to tell businesses where they may operate.

Overall, however, Trump has proposed a serious and substantive plan. I expect that tomorrow's headlines in the mainstream media will focus on Trump's trip to Mexico in order to meet with the Mexican President, Enrique Pena Nieto. I expect that the media will follow Clinton's lead and criticize Trump for making that visit. Then again. Trump went to Louisiana following the terrible flooding there. Obama could not interrupt his golfing vacation, and Clinton was, what, too busy?

Trump: "President Obama and Hillary Clinton have engaged in gross dereliction of duty by surrendering the safety of the American people to open borders." If you disagree with that, please explain how Obama's and Clinton's support for sanctuary cities protects the safety of the American people. Trump: the "central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants...(but) the well-being of the American people."

There is a clear choice in this election. You either believe the United States of America should continue to survive as a sovereign entity, or you do not. If you believe in open borders, then you do not support the sovereignty of the USA, and Clinton is your candidate.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

A Few More Odds and Ends

Colin Kaepernick is the star quarterback for the San Francisco Forty-Niners. During this past Friday's exhibition game against the Green Bay Packers, he refused to stand for the playing of the national anthem. Said Kaepernick: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

Clearly, Kaepernick has the absolute right to sit during the playing of the national anthem. It is the type of choice that demonstrates the greatness of our country. Ironically, Kaepernick recently signed a six year $114,000,000 contract with the Niners. Depending on his performance, he may not get the full dollar amount. But tens of millions of dollars still sounds pretty good to me. So I am confused about how a black man can make that kind of money in the United States and still conclude that the country "oppresses" blacks.

Now, there is no doubt that the issue of improper police shootings, Kaepernick's concern, is a legitimate issue. But how does that translate into a condemnation of the entire country? And I would ask him if he does not feel that he is disrespecting the blacks who make up 21.5% of the US Army and 19.3% of the US Navy - men and women who have signed up to defend this "oppressive" country with their lives if necessary.

By contrast, there was a moving story out of the recent Olympics. Sam Kendricks is a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Army Reserve, and a world class pole vaulter. As he was running down the track with the pole in his hands, about to make a jump, he heard the playing of the national anthem elsewhere in the arena. He immediately stopped running, laid his pole on the ground, and stood at attention.

The anthem was obviously being played during a ceremony for a US Gold medal winner, but in watching the video it is clear that Kendricks could not tell where in the arena the flag was being raised. But he stopped, and stayed at attention until the playing of the anthem was completed. It was an amazing display of patriotism. When the music stopped he picked up his pole and ran to make the jump again. I am pleased to report that 2nd Lieutenant Kendricks won the Bronze medal in the pole vault.

In the May 19, 2016 post (An Email Exchange With A Columbia Law School Professor, Part II), four comments were made about the post. Just click on "comments" to read them. The last two were by the same person, Theish Fushkindum. This is not someone that I know, although I just found out that, in fact, the two comments were written by a young member of my extended family. She is a young college student, and just told me that she wrote the two comments. I never saw a comment under her name.

It turns out that she used a pseudonym, but I must admit I missed the irony. You see, the intent behind the name was to say "This is Fuckin' Dumb." Now, I appreciate humor as much as anyone, so I will leave the comments as they are. As for the insult, as this blog has noted numerous times, leftists (recall there are almost no liberals anymore) prefer demagoguery, name-calling, demonization and mockery to true debate. Besides, the writer is a college student who knows everything after having had almost no real world experiences. Reminds me of myself at that age.