Blog powered by Typepad

« RIP Alexander Chancellor | Main | Your (late again) Monday Funnies: 30.1.17 »

Sunday, 29 January 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As I understand it, Donald Trump is merely putting a 90 day halt to immigration from certain countries, apart from Syrians which is permanent, to allow government time to work out how to stop jihadis getting in, while allowing in genuine migrants. Of course, this has caused problems with people like Mo Farrah not being able to get back to his family, but no government decree is ever 100% perfect. I wonder how long it will be that ISIS (those suffering from Islamic Sexual Inadequacy Syndrome) will use stolen or forged documents from 'friendly countries' to try and escape the ban.

I should further point out that Trump is simply implementing a law signed by Obama, and on occasion enforced by Obama.
Since the EO explicitly requires action to be within the law the blame here may be down to the officials implementing it.
There again it being down to the law being too complicated for even officials to understand.

Shock and Awe. "I can do this, so don't bother opposing me doing that.

The actual enforcement of an existing Obama law. The Green card part was a fumble because it is rare that a holder is stopped and denied. It does happen and brings need for legal remedy. The Stay issued by the Obama appointed judge is only for that part of the EO. The countries listed in the original law were already in place. The list needs to be expanded.

What the public will see and remember are the preplanned and funded "demonstrators" at the airport(s). They are acting on behalf of the terrorist enablers of CAIR as well as the open borders anarchists funded by George Soros. These assorted Muslim enablers and Leftists will as usual, go over the top with their demos and ugly signs. The public will remember only this agitprop. Meantime, in a day or two, Trump will announce whoever will be the Supreme Court nominee. Cue more mental derangement, shrieking, and general liberal acting out. Their media will join in as usual. The public will see the same funded rent a red mobs, same signs, same old same old.

This is the Trump policy surely? He does something, the usual suspects are upset and when they are fully engaged in being upset - he announces something else. It must be exhausting for them.

If California does pull off a "CaExit", I wonder how many of its "remainers" will flow into neighboring states? We have cousins that dwell in Ca. and they will come back east.

David, you got me going! I read "hash" and immediately thought corn beef hash. Ah the cooking segment I thought. Oops!

For goodness sake, Whiters, don't try smoking your corned beef!

Take care, David. Continuing to make lascivious comments about the First Trophy Wife might draw unwelcome traffic to your blog. The Philadelphia Inquirer drew attention to one of its articles by tweeting "Is @FLOTUS Trump the first sexy first lady?", which set off much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. In its own defense the paper responded in part: "We didn’t objectify Melania. She did that to herself when she posed naked for a magazine."

The wait for Trump to be subtle will be a long one. It was fun to watch PM May trying to keep her British reserve and not cringe too visibly as The Golden One answered questions directed at her and questioned her taste in reporters. They did end up holding hands, though, so all's well that ends well. The Ugly American is back, baby!

"Lascivious"! Moi? No, no, no, just frightfully proper English admiration with only a modicum of drooling!

I still have my green card (as a keepsake), which I received when I immigrated to the United States (legally) with my parents at age seven. It is now just a keepsake because five years after I got my green card I became a naturalized citizen, which superseded my green-card status. This all happened more than sixty years ago at a time when such important issues were of little concern to me because I was then a minor, and such issues were the responsibility of my parents.

Having said that, the point I want to make here is that I do recall certain facts about green-card status, namely:

  • A green card is not the equivalent of a naturalization document. A green card is a document of permanent-resident status, which identifies its holder as a legal resident of the United States whose intention is to become a naturalized citizen of the United States.

  • A green card entitles (and obligates) its holder to some of the same entitlements (and obligations) of a citizen, but not all! For example, with a green card a person may leave the United States temporarily but can lose his green-card status if his absence is ruled by the Immigration Authority to be permanent. A "greener" is subject to the draft, but may not serve jury duty nor vote. In essence, a "greener" is on track for citizenship on a conditional basis and the conditional status is for a minimum of five years.

I believe that the latest brouhaha about President Trump's EO is more of the same Leftist outrage we have come to expect ever since Mr. Trump won the Presidential Election. The handful of green-card holders who have been detained (no, they have not been imprisoned or shot) may or may not have been wrongly detained, but it is merely a brief matter of time before the legal consequences of the EO are ironed out.

David. Thoroughly approve the photo of the First Lady's magnificent ... magnificence. I did not approve of the dress she wore at the inaugural balls. It reminded me of something I produced on the lathe bin metalwork class, many many years ago. I was informed by my wife that it was spectacular, so there is that.


A coupla things ...

If Trump had been where he is today when you were a nipper, you'd likely not be with us today.

May I ask you: If the Jewish, Israeli, whatever they were referred to as at the time, conspirators who planned a 911 style bombing of the Houses of Parliament in the 1950's that was thwarted at the last moment, had succeeded in obliterating the symbol and actual edifice of British parliamentary democracy, would we, Blighty, have been justified in a blanket ban on all Jews / Israelis entering the UK?

Or do you say it would have been an over-reaction?


SoD I don't know what TBH's opinion would be however my [Jewish] opinion is that if an Israeli/Jewish group had planned and carried out such an act in the 1950's then the UK would be justly entitled to look carefully at any Israeli/Jewish person wishing to enter the UK. Not much different to what "the Donald" is doing. Terrorism is just what it says and it doesn't matter what the terrorist's religion or nationality is.

Not to mention that it would have been a particularly ungrateful act given that it was the Balfour Declaration that proposed the formation of Israel and it was UK and Commonwealth forces who took the area away from Turkey.

Correction, it was 1947.

So soon after liberating the Nazi death camps. There's gratitude for you, OzD,



"If Trump had been where he is today when you were a nipper, you'd likely not be with us today."
That is a completely false assertion. My situation in 1949 was that after more than a year on the immigration waiting list (while we were in a "displaced-persons camp" in the American Occupation Zone of West Germany), during which time my parents had to jump through a variety of hoops to gain our immigration status to the United States, we arrived in New York Harbor aboard an American troop ship and received our green cards from the American authorities. From that point on we were officially permanent residents of the United States with the understanding that we intended to become naturalized citizens at the earliest opportunity. For the next five years, we did not exit the borders of the United States, until we became naturalized citizens. At that point in time and ever since the only restriction on my American citizenship has been that I am not eligible to be President of the United States.

As to your hypothetical scenario, I am not eligible to opine on the legal justification of Blighty's decisions concerning Blighty's immigration policy nor any other issue concerning Blighty's sovereignty. If you would like my opinion based on my personal code of ethics, however, I would say that a ban on Israelis might be justified if Israelis had been guilty of such a heinous crime. But a "blanket" ban of all Jews the world over, even American Jews who would never (in my opinion) advocate such an act, would be unreasonable, albeit that would have been within the purview of Blighty's authority.

Now let me ask you if you think the United States is legally justified to frame its own immigration policy however it sees fit? [Hint: The correct answer is "yes"].

SoD the "Stern Gang" [Irgun Tsvai Leumi B'Yisrael] was never anything but a terrorist group which probably did more damage to the peaceful transition of the area from Protectorate to Nation State than any doubtful benefit it is said to have achieved.

Largely undocumented is the fact that many British units pulling out of the Protectorate left ordnance behind for the coming new nation state of Israel. Without the input of the Stern Gang that amount of ordnance would probably have been greater. Photographs taken of Israeli forces in the 1948 war show the infantry using the SMLE .303 rifle, Bren light machine guns and Sten guns. Weapons bequeathed by departing Brits. Who knows what else was left behind despite the efforts of Irgun Tsvai Leumi B'Yisrael.

They were never anything but terrorists and justly deserved any retribution they may have received.

Shalom TBH

Tam Dalyell was not a friend of the British armed forces. The Belgrano was on a war footing. He claimed they were retreating but never faced up to the fact the Belgrano was there. Not a man to be trusted with defense.


I composed and posted my response to SoD's remarks (at 00:17) before I saw your remarks (at 00:34) and his follow-up (at 00:46). In any case, they would not have changed significantly my own remarks (at 01:22). I have never been a supporter of terrorism of any stripe and I agree with your remarks (at 00:34).



I can assure you that all displaced persons were (and those who are still alive continue to be) grateful for what the Anglo-American forces, as well as the Russian armies, had done to defeat Nazi Germany. And I doubt very much that any displaced person was a member of the "Stern Gang", especially not in 1947. We were all in the American and British Occupation Zones in West Germany at that time. I urge you to avoid making sweeping generalizations by implying that every Israeli was a Stern-Gang member (or sympathizer) and that every Jew in the world is an Israeli or an Israeli-policy sympathizer. I happen to be a supporter of Israel (though not a blanket supporter of all its policies), but many of my co-religionists are not, unfortunately.

BTW, "International Holocaust Remembrance Day" is commemorated on January 27 because it was on that date in 1945 that units of Marshal Konev's 1st Ukranian Front liberated the Auschwitz death camp. I am also eternally grateful for that.

That's what they all say, BigHen ...


"I urge you to avoid making sweeping generalizations by implying that every Israeli was a Stern-Gang member (or sympathizer) and that every Jew in the world is an Israeli or an Israeli-policy sympathizer. I happen to be a supporter of Israel (though not a blanket supporter of all its policies), but many of my co-religionists are not, unfortunately."


"I urge you to avoid making sweeping generalizations by implying that every Muslim is an ISIS member (or sympathizer) and that every Muslim in the world is an ISIS or a Caliphate-policy sympathizer. I happen to be a supporter of the Caliphate (though not a blanket supporter of all its policies), but many of my co-religionists are not, unfortunately."

Search and replace - great little techie tool for testing self reference and consistency. Godel would be proud.


Same thing, but on a lighter note ...


Jimmy I know nothing of the person of whom you are speaking but the sinking of the Belgrano was a logical and tactical necessity. While it may have been a WW2 era Cruiser it was still a heavy maritime asset capable of inflicting serious damage to the Brit fleet and land forces.

It would have been stupidity to leave it unmolested where it was. There are a lot of people who do not understand the complexities of maritime warfare and their opinions on naval strategy and tactics are generally wrong.

The Brit operation to retake the Falklands was well planned and executed. Those who point to the losses on both sides as failures in strategic thinking do not understand modern naval operations or just how exposed you are on even a modern warship in the middle of a vast bit of ocean.

The Argentinian Generals, like most Generals, do not comprehend the nature of maritime warfare or the need to command the sea as well as the air when you are fighting over islands.

It was absolutely daft / criminal of the Argentines to have the Belgrano cruising around anywhere near a war zone - what followed was entirely foreseeable, and there was no potential benefit that I can see.

On the hash - that would explain the totally blatant smoking of same which I observe on my every visit to Bristol.

David, I read about Lincoln years ago from a college text that covered the presidents through Eisenhower. While I can't recommend any of these books, the price is right. There's also one about Booth:

It's nice to know Chicagoans occasionally pause piling up carnage to take in a play.

"That's what they all say, BigHen ..."
You had me fooled, SoD. Shame on me.

For a while there, I thought you weren't a total dick.

The comments to this entry are closed.