home

Report Trump May Use National Guard to Round-Up Undocmented

Donald Trump just keeps coming up with bad ideas. This one's a non-starter unless he wants violence in the streets.

The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.

If this idea originated with his advisers, they are morons. But we knew that already.

I suspect Trump is trying to stay in the news and making sh*t up to draw big headlines. Otherwise, no one would care enough to write or read about him.

< Friday Open Thread | Former CIA Analyst: Trump Is Too Demoralizing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The actual memo addresses this idea (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 03:04:04 PM EST
    in about one page of its 11 pages. It appears to be based on a dubious extension or application of an existing provision that allows a state government to agree to authorize its employees (apparently meaning the state police or similar) to assist ICE in enforcement duties. The draft then interprets this category of state employees to include the National Guard. I question the legality of any such ploy under the Posse Comitatus Act.

    wiki says (none / 0) (#2)
    by linea on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 03:41:17 PM EST
    the posse comitatus act applies to the regular army not the state national guard.

    i dont understand how members of the national guard would have arrest authority. the article states:

    the federal 287(g) program allows specially trained local law enforcement officials to participate in immigration enforcement on the streets and check whether people held in local jails were in the country illegally. ICE trained and certified roughly 1,600 officers to carry out those checks from 2006 to 2015.

    Parent

    The Army patrolling (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 04:14:09 PM EST
    the streets looking for people to deport?

    Well, what does that look like?  Godwin's Law has been repealed.

    Yes, and the Army (none / 0) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    or federalized National Guard will need to bone up on their policing skills, including CSI forensics so as to catch those rapists and criminals (curious that Trump has two categories) being sent by Mexico.

    Parent
    There are more than 10,000 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by fishcamp on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    Latinos, mostly Mexicans who live down valley from Aspen.  They work everywhere, grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, construction, and more.  Not many of them are legal, and everybody knows this.  If they started a roundup the city would be paralyzed.  Most resorts in Colorado are faced with the same problem.  I wonder how many illegals Trump has workiing in his empire?

    Aspen sounds like a microcosm (none / 0) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 12:09:15 AM EST
    for the entire U.S.

    Here's a question I've been asking for years: "Why is it that every Presidential Candidate runs on doing something about the 'illegal immigrant problem,' then does nothing about it once elected?"

    Answer: Because, once elected, the new President's economic advisors, actual experts on the economy, sit the new President down and give him a short primer on what would happen to our economy if he, in fact, actually stopped the 'illegals' from coming into the country. Basically, instant recession, if not, instant depression.

    The sad, but true, fact of the matter is that most of the jobs these, so called, "illegals," do are jobs "Americans," simply, will not do. And, please, don't argue with me over this, I've been doing business here over 40 years, and it is an irrefutable fact of life.

    Parent

    Normally, I'd agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 03:30:57 AM EST
    Unfortunately, these are hardly normal times. Both this president and his immediate core of key advisors appear to be far more intemperate and ideologically motivated, than reasonable and logic-driven. And that presents us with a real quandary here. Your model holds its applicability only so long as we've elected a president who's at least somewhat mature and rational, and further surrounds himself with sober-minded policymakers, which has always been the case until now. Trump & Co. seem to be anything but that.

    Parent
    What??? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 05:18:17 AM EST
    Are you seriously suggesting that President Donald Trump is not "reasonable and logic-driven?" Nor, even "mature and rational?" Well, I'll be damned; you learn something new every day.

    Anyway, lol, of course you're right. What I meant was, "under normal circumstances (or a normal President.) The question then is, did Trump's economic advisors not tell him of the inevitable damage his expulsion & Wall nonsense would have on our country? Or, was it, knowing Trump's knee-jerk rejection of any sort of criticism, even factual, undebatable, criticism, they decided that keeping their mouths shut was the expedient way to go?

    Look, the fact that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the health and well-being of our country is no longer a "possibility." Four weeks in office should erase any doubts of that. The question is how do the Democrats (and reasonable Republicans) deal with it going forward? The cold reality is the Democrats did lose the election. That they didn't win by 30 points is something they should do some serious soul-searching over. "Not Trump" didn't work last November; I hope they have something better going forward. Electing Schumer and Pelosi for the leaderships in Congress does not indicate they learned anything about the mood of the electorate, IMO.

    Parent

    ... as the Democratic leaders in their respective chambers indicates that experienced and capable leadership is in thin supply up on Capitol Hill.

    This battle needs to first be won at the state and local levels. Of far more serious and immediate concern to me is the fact that the Democratic Party lost over 1,000 state legislative seats across the country between 2010 and 2016.

    In raw percentages, our numbers at the statehouses were reduced across the board by some 30%. (There is a total of 7,383 state legislators in the United States.) The DNC ignored its own base level and became way too D.C.-centric, and we've since paid a huge and terrible price for that pre-occupation and neglect.

    People need to focus on the elected officials inhabiting their own statehouses, city halls and county buildings, because that's where our party's future leaders first tend to rise through the political ranks.

    Conversely, the same applies to the GOP. And if we want to thwart the far right and its unhinged and irrational base, then we need to first identify and then strangle crazy in the cradle (so to speak), wherever it exists at the local level. We can't wait until the Paul Ryans, Tom Cottons and Marsha Blackburns of the world reach Capitol Hill, before we finally start noticing and trying to do something about them.

    Our resistance must first re-assert itself in our hometowns and state capital cities, before we can begin to have an effective and sustained impact inside the Washington Beltway.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    At what price (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    do you think "Americans" will do these jobs and when will "business" offer it?

    Parent
    Well, business will offer (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:36:17 AM EST
    any price they have to if the current labor supply dries up. But, then you'll have get used to paying six bucks for a scrambled egg sandwich at your neighborhood luncheonette, $3.00 for that head of lettuce Mrs. Jim brings home from the grocery store, and you'll happily shell out 200 bucks to stay overnite at your friendly Motel 6.

    (All price by necessity, are estimates, of course)

    Good old supply & demand always get together and make a deal. Unfortunately, at such higher labor costs demand will dry up faster than a raindrop in the Sahara, and, Recession/Depression here we come.

    Of course, every President since WW2 knew this, and, so, the order went out, "Talk tough, but act with benign neglect."

    Parent

    Maybe true and maybe not (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    Technology will enter in just as it entered in the late 40's and 50's depressing the labor content in farm goods and driving labor off the farms and into the factories.

    How we absorb this new generation of people losing their job to technology is a challenge that no one on either side has even acknowledged.

    We have been living in a paradise of cheap goods made in the Third World. What happens when they decide they want a bigger slice of the pie brings some interesting scenarios to mind.

    BTW - That head of "organic" lettuce is already at $2.66 at my local Walmart.

    Parent

    For (none / 0) (#49)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 03:10:07 PM EST
    the most part agriculture has already reached the upper levels of technology, at least on the mechanical side. It's nearly impossible to mechanize many types of produce harvesting and nothing short of an army of migrant robots would do the trick. Probably doable in the near future, but wildly expensive.

    You make sense here,

    How we absorb this new generation of people losing their job to technology is a challenge that no one on either side has even acknowledged.
    but there are plenty of us on the left that believe that automation was as least as big a driver of job loss as globalization. Hillary actually addressed the issue.

    and here

    We have been living in a paradise of cheap goods made in the Third World. What happens when they decide they want a bigger slice of the pie brings some interesting scenarios to mind.
    but it's not when, it's already happening, the question is how does it play out.

    The global economy is our creation we came to dominance in WW2 and it's aftermath, we won the cold war, American style capitalism is ascendant around the world.

    The sad fact is that the emerging countries are playing the game much better then we are, not because we are stupid or weak, but because there is no way we can compete on the cost of labor(nor should we try).

    Parent

    Answers (none / 0) (#28)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:11:15 AM EST
    Too high and never, at least that's the only answers the precious "free market" can and will support and it's probably not a bad thing either.

    Parent
    The free market has never been free (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:24:14 AM EST
    doing such things as not selling banned products and collecting taxes for the government.

    But if the border was shut down and if the remaining undocumented workers were given green cards, wouldn't the market have to increase wages as the labor pool is absorbed over time which would bring in both groups?

    Parent

    What I find laughable (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 05:16:54 PM EST
    is when the dedicated followers of the party of no minimum wage increases and Right To Work laws claim to support Trump's policy because it'll help the standard of living of American workers.

    Trump is the president, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 05:24:38 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "I suspect Trump is trying to stay in the news and making sh*t up to draw big headlines. Otherwise, no one would care enough to write or read about him."

    He's no longer some carnival barker. It's therefore in our best interests to pay close attention to what he says and does.

    While many of his advisors may well be dimwits and ignoramuses, they also hold positions of real power and authority and can do us an awful lot of harm.

    Further, Steve Bannon is no moron. You are making a very grave mistake if you think that, and thus urge everyone to ignore this malevolent force in the highest echelons of the executive branch.

    Our country is clearly in harm's way. Please don't turn your back because you find Trump's presence somehow distasteful and nauseating, or further assume that Americans will necessarily turn out in force to repulse his sorry a$$, should he make good on his attempt to federalize the National Guard.

    Now is the time for extreme vigilance on all our parts. Aloha.

    California Gov. Brown and AG Becerra ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 02:14:24 AM EST
    ... will likely file suit to resist any attempt by Trump to harness the state's own National Guard to carry out anti-immigrant policies which the state's leaders themselves are on record as opposing.

    The Sacramento Bee's Marcos Breton warns the state's prominent Latino political leaders that while state residents generally support them on an emotional level, their very best arguments in opposition to Trump's anti-immigrant crusade are actually on economic grounds:

    "[CA Attorney General Xavier] Becerra articulated the beginnings of an argument when he told The New York Times: 'Undocumented workers actually pay billions of dollars in taxes, something only flat-earthers try to deny these days. That's why every analysis of a comprehensive reform of our broken immigration system reveals that our nation and our economy would benefit from bringing the undocumented out of the shadows.'

    "Who disagrees with this argument? Jeff Sessions, the former U.S. senator who is now Trump's attorney general. Sessions consistently voted against comprehensive immigration reform. He is for issuing fewer green cards to legal residents. He contends immigrants take jobs away from Americans, and suck up a huge share of welfare dollars, when research shows otherwise.

    "One could argue that the Trump administration's immigration platform promotes a brand of nationalism that rejects the very multiculturalism that Becerra, de León and others rode to elective office. If this is true, California's leaders not only are taking on a formidable opponent - they are battling a foe that views them as the problem.

    "You can't fight that enemy by appealing to sympathy, because the enemy has none."

    Speaking as someone whose Mexican-American in-laws were once undocumented for the better part of two decades, it's very difficult to not be emotional on an issue as personal as this one. But that's exactly what we must be in the face of an opponent that shows no heart.

    Let emotion fuel our desire to oppose this inhumane policy. But our argument itself must be dispassionate in its appeal to people's pragmatism, reason and common sense.

    Any immigration policy underscored by anti-immigrant sentiment and bigotry is both myopic and foolish, because immigrants themselves are of bedrock importance to the socio-economic well being of the United States as a whole.

    Carrying out this mean-spirited program will cost this country very dearly, by severely damaging both our economy and our relationships with overseas markets, particularly in Mexico and the rest of Latin America.

    Aloha.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#22)
    by Coral on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 06:32:25 AM EST
    the cost to our body politic. It would exacerbate divisions among an already extremely polarized nation.

    We're having marches in the streets weekly now, added to the Trump FL rally, as it is. What kind of protests and counterprotests would we see if people begin to be rounded up en masse?

    How far will this go?

    Parent

    "Those who do not learn history are doomed (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 12:24:47 PM EST
    to repeat it." Since so-called human Trump can't or won't read a book, this is a huge problem. Alabama passed HB56 a while back. The strict anti-immigrant bill that has over time been gutted by the courts and forced to be changed by the people who passed it because of all the consequences.

    I remember seeing a story, I believe on 60 Minutes, where they interviewed an Alabama farmer who could not get his watermelons harvested because the Latinos had left the state. He said the locals were not willing to do the hard work involved in agriculture.

    To all those who think losing these workers is a good idea, you are nuts. Unless you are happy paying $20 for that watermelon in the future. Or another $20 for a bunch of grapes or a box of raisins.

    Farm work is hard work. Immigrant labor (legal or otherwise) should be admired for what they do for the pay they receive.

    Unlike most on here (I'm guessing), I have actually picked grapes. When I 16, I rode a Greyhound bus from Stockton, CA to Madera, CA to pick grapes for a woman who had advertised for help in the local paper. Let me tell you, I was completely unprepared for what I was in for. Picking grapes is a skill. It is very hard work and requires the right kind of cutting tools. Americans are too soft and not hungry enough to perform this back breaking work.

    You can rail all day long about the evils of undocumented immigrants taking "American" job. It's BS. Unless you're ready to grow your own, plan on starving or subsisting on prepackaged, factory made food for the rest of your lives.

    Same thing (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 01:17:35 PM EST
    happened here in GA. The geniuses under the Gold Dome thought pandering to the white nationalists here in GA was a good idea. You know, the ones in GA that think there are too many "brown" people in GA. They could not find enough local workers. It seems many conservatives don't realize that most farming is done in areas of low population. So there were not enough people in the local area to harvest the crops and people from other areas of the state were not going to drive hours for a job that paid 50 cents for a basket of onions. So the farmers started screaming that their crops were rotting in the fields and lo and behold the geniuses in the Gold Dome got together and pretty much dismantled the legislation they were so proud of just a few months before.

    Parent
    I wrote about this last year (none / 0) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    "Alabama farmers say millions of dollars in crops may be lost for lack of workers"

    ==============
    "You want sweet potatoes from Alabama? You want tomatoes? Alabama farmers are saying tens of millions of dollars of crops may be lost this year because of immigration reform measures passed in the state which are making it difficult for farmers to find workers."
    ===============
    Chuck0, you picked grapes?.......piece of cake. I was put in charge of a strawberry patch, approximately 1/4 acre large when I was 12 years old. The most grueling, back breaking, horrific work I've ever done. Strawberries grow down on the ground and have to be de-weeded every day. You work for an hour, down on your knees, picking weeds, one strand at a time, around each strawberry plant.  After the hour, you look up and see you've done about on square foot of de-weeding. AND, the weeds grow back e-v-e-r-y day! I don't care what they pay, there isn't enough money on earth for me to do that ever again.

    Parent
    I'm with you (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 02:08:21 PM EST
    on those strawberries. I have picked strawberries and it's the worst.

    Parent
    Lotsa strawberry farms out my way. (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    Big farms out here have machines that make the fields into long ridges & troughs, probably 2 feet deep or so between them. The ridges are covered in plastic. The strawberries grow on the top of the ridges through little holes in the plastic.

    I'm no farmer but I think the little holes are the only place plants (including weeds) can grow, so weeds/weeding are limited. And the height of the ridges raises the handwork to maybe knee-heightish.

    Still very hard work, here's an LA Times article on it.

    Parent

    I worked (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 05:15:15 PM EST
    a strawberry farm, had the rows with plastic about 16 inches high. Weeding was minimal, the tractor weeded between the rows and we hand plucked the few that managed to break through holes. We had a low-rider contraction that we rode behind the tractor to eliminate much of the bending over and walking, it was still very tedious and tiring.

    Parent
    I've picked strawberries too. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 04:49:41 PM EST
    But not for pay. Mom used to haul us out to a pick your own farm in Virginia when I was a kid. It was little easier then, because you are closer to the ground when you 9 or 10. I've tried doing it as an adult. I stick to buying them by the basket from the local roadside stands.

    Parent
    It sucks.

    Oddly, in France, the grape pickers are often your average French/international "white" people. I think it's a mix of "nationals" and migrants in other countries.

    Parent

    Reading back over this thread (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 02:53:22 PM EST
    I get the distinct impression that many of you don't want the borders closed and undocumented people deported by Trump because you want an endless source of cheap labor to give you cheap things.

    Now, before you explode with invective towards me, remember that I have said I want the borders closed and undocumented people here, assuming they pass a background check, given green cards and a path to citizenship if they want one.

    And I don't think I am all that different than many people over this.

    But by opposing the sealed border you give the  opposition a moral hammer to beat you with.


    Oh, good lord (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    You can be for reasonable immigration reform and not be for "open borders". Open borders would be what libertarians advocate for and that is no immigration laws whatsoever. We already have pretty strict border controls despite what Trump has been telling you and the wall is just a fool's errand.

    So you're basically supporting the stance Hillary had. Of course we all know with you though voting is really not based so much on issues as a cultural touchstone for you.

    Parent

    Speaking of hammers (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    since I started coming here, I've noticed you siding, unswervingly, with the party that has always fought tooth-and-nail against minimum wage increases, paid family leave, workplace safety and environment regulations, the ability of workers to organize effectively for collective bargining puroposes etc etc

    By continuing on your laughably hypocritical course of faux-concern and crocodile tears for American workers, you do "the opposition's" work for them by further underscoring the blatant dishonesty and treachery workers can expect from the Right side of the aisle.

    Parent

    I don't want the border "closed". (none / 0) (#61)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 04:59:09 PM EST
    And neither should you right wing capitalists. Tourism and business travel are good for the economy. I want people welcomed here to visit. There is much more XML development in Canada and Europe than the United States. Yet there is a annual conference in the DC area that is losing attendees due to the welcome mat being pulled out. The conference used to be held in Canada. Now the organizers are looking to return there. No one wants to come here.

    You sound like my father after he retired from the Navy. He supported stupid stuff that was bad for the economy. He was on the dole, dependent upon his Navy retirement. He didn't care if proposed policies were bad for commerce, it didn't affect his money. He got his check irregardless if his neighbors were starving from lack of work.


    Parent

    Oh come on, Chucko (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    I'm not a very good right winger but...

    The discussion is about undocumented persons entering the country. It is not about closing the border for people entering legally.

    But you knew that.

    BTW - I was in 10 years. They don't give you a pension for that.

    And your father was not on the dole. He served and his pension was part of the contract between him and the navy. He earned every penny, and then some, of what they gave him

    Parent

    Whoosh, zoom. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 07:08:38 PM EST
    Gist of the comment completely over your head. Try again. But you only get 2 more chances.

    Parent
    If you are really the social progressive ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    ... that you say you are, then you ought to seriously re-examine your posts and advocacy here at TL, since they tend to roundly undercut such a contention.

     You cannot logically or validly claim to support policies for poor and working people, while simultaneously supporting those politicians whose own actions are completely antithetical to such policies.

    You cannot claim to detest war, and then agitate for the carpet-bombing of whole cities and towns full of people you presume to dislike.

    You cannot say you're for single-payer health care, while cheering on people who advocate for an Ayn Randian-style free market solution for our prevailing healthcare model.

    You cannot stake a moral claim to patriotism, while calling for the public hanging of those who hold dissenting opinions, or while running interference for those who would seek to obstruct an investigation into a foreign power's interference in our recently concluded elections.

    And you cannot now claim to support immigrants, documented or otherwise, when you have heretofore bashed them repeatedly with an almost gleeful abandon in these very threads.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Oh please (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 07:54:38 PM EST
    I have not bashed immigrants and you cannot show that I have. And you either know and are lying or you're terribly misinformed. I will plead guilty to saying that we need more vetting of refugees and that Trump is correct in saying, let's figure out what's going on.

    Interference for who?? Where have I said don't investigate? Again, you make things up. I'd love to know who hacked the DNC and who leaked the Flynn stuff.

    Of course I could show the video of Obama explaining  over what he thought as a dead mike that:

    After my election I will have more flexibility."

    I wonder what he meant? Flexibility to do what?

    War has never been avoided by people that will not fight. Indeed, wolves attack sheep. And war is nasty and terrible and all the other things you want to say. But hear this. If you go to war you must win. You don't seem to understand that and you claim yo believe that supporting an enemy during combat is not patriotic.

    Here, read what Whittle has to say. He makes a lot sense. Perhaps Kipling said it best.

    "While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,
    an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
    But it's "Please to walk in front, sir,"
    when there's trouble in the wind,
    There's trouble in the wind, my boys,
    there's trouble in the wind,
    O it's "Please to walk in front, sir,"
    when there's trouble in the wind."

    And you can't be for a system that destroys business, causes people to lose jobs and not be able to pay their insurance bills...Not and give a flip about people. I mean the insurance companies, who thought they would get fat on Obamacare, are saying it is collapsing.

    So yes. Show me a politician who says they will pass a single payer system that will cover everyone and be paid for by a sales tax on everyone and I'll give them strong consideration.

    Which, by your position on keeping on bringing in an endless supply of cheap labor so you can have cheap grapes... you show. You care about the "picture." You don't give a ^%4 about the people in it.


    Parent

    So all that stuff about Latin American (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:01:37 PM EST
    immigrants coming from an inferior "southern european" culture wasn't bashing immigrants?

    Parent
    Of course not (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 08:32:01 AM EST
    How like a Leftie for you to identify an individual with their background.

    Parent
    I'm willing to entertain the idea (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 12:05:38 PM EST
    that your own continued stupid and bigoted notions have nothing to do with your background and could be the result of social isolation or eating paint chips.

    Either way, it'd be good for you to try to get out and meet and talk to some of these brown people you're so terrified of.

    You'll find they're just flesh and blood people, like you and me.

     

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 03:58:32 AM EST
    Thank you. Old Uncle Liberty's memory seems to be slipping as he gets on in years.

    Parent
    jim, shallow thoughts (none / 0) (#96)
    by fishcamp on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 09:24:46 PM EST
    from a shallow mind.  Get with it bro, quit acting like some kind of a know it all.  Your thoughts are meaningless and ridiculous, but could be better if you just gave up your silly act, and got back to reality.  I just fail to understand why you keep this facade going.  I've read a few of your posts in the past when you acted like a normal guy.  I really don't like turning against you, but you have been dropping off the deep end too much lately.  Please come back to normal thinking.

    Parent
    i agree some (none / 0) (#73)
    by linea on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 07:46:14 PM EST
    people here do seem to be arguing that because undocumented migrants keep some products and services cheap; the status quo should be maintained because it personnally benefits them. ignoring the fact that the value of labor is artificially depressed for citizen workers and that migrants are subject to abuse in ways other than poor wages.

    i suppose rush limbaugh would agree with many TLers on that; best to pay sub-market wages to a housekeeper who can be bullied to pickup your illegal drugs from street corners.

    But, then you'll have get used to paying six bucks for a scrambled egg sandwich at your neighborhood luncheonette, $3.00 for that head of lettuce.

    i'm fine with more expensive scrambled egg sandwiches. full employment and higher wages benefits society more than artificially low prices for products. in my opinion.


    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 08:10:02 PM EST
    i agree some people here do seem to be arguing that because undocumented migrants keep some products and services cheap; the status quo should be maintained because it personnally benefits them

    Pointing out that the price of certain goods and services will rise (in some cases very sharply) if undocumented immigrants are deported is NOT the same as arguing for the status quo for selfish reasons.

    Parent

    Well, linea (none / 0) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 04:18:56 AM EST
    You finally wrote a comment you really, rightfully should end with, "I'm sorry."

    What a sorrowful, misunderstood, ignorant analysis of a serious condition.

    I don't write about astro-physics, you really shouldn't write about the economy.

    Someday, when you've gained some knowledge of the dynamic interaction in a complicated economic system you'll glow beet-red with embarrassment in recalling this post. I'm quite sure that single mom, on food stamps, with 3 kids, appreciates you're being "fine with more expensive scrambled egg sandwiches."

    I truly am sorry for you.

    Parent

    you neither refute nor inform (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by linea on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 08:09:48 PM EST
    your post serves no purpose other than to insult. i do research and author intelligent posts and where appropriate i identify an opinion. you are bad-mannered, discourteous, and rude.

    The Audacity of Hope
    Barack Obama

    If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole--especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan--it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.

    The Liberal Case Against Illegal Immigration
    Doug McIntyre

    Yes, we need to do something to help the undocumented immigrants already here--but not in a way that drives down workers' wages.

    I learned the ugly side of illegal immigration from Black construction workers who, for whatever local anomaly, once dominated the drywall trade in Los Angeles. They complained their $18 dollar an hour jobs had fallen to $13 an hour before vanishing entirely as the industry was taken over by a largely illegal workforce.

    Even with my B.A. in English I can understand the economics involved: lots of cheap labor cheapens labor. It's supply and demand 101.



    Parent
    Fake news? (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 07:37:30 PM EST
    A DHS official described the document as a very early draft that was not seriously considered and never brought to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly for approval.

    snip

    Almost immediately after the Associated Press published its report, the White House issued a denial. "That is 100% not true. It is false," Press Secretary Sean Spicer told the media pool aboard Air Force

    LA Times

    No, not fake news at all (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    It is a genuine draft, which was clearly labeled as such in the AP story that published it. News you aren't happy about is not the definition of "fake news."

    Parent
    Yes not fake news (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 11:08:02 PM EST
    But not likely to happen thank God

    Unfortunately have heard from active duty friends that Trump is demanding the 30 day ISIS solution he bragged about. He has no plan, but his numbers are in the septic so he has to produce some bigly stuff.

    Serving people very stressed, because there isn't a 30 day fix for ISIS. He continues to insist and demand so they are actually trying to put something impossible together.


    Parent

    Tracy, are you sure about this? (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 07:34:07 AM EST
    I thought he wanted The Plan in 30 days, not defeat ISIS in 30 days.

    I realize Trump isn't too competent, but even he couldn't expect to defeat ISIS in one month's time. Or, could he?

    Please let us know.

    Parent

    I'm quite sure that's what MT meant (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:36:31 AM EST
    also. To devise, within 30 days, a plan with a realistic prospect of "defeating" ISIS. Good luck with that silliness.

    Parent
    Sorry, yes, plan in 30 days (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 11:38:36 AM EST
    They have 8 days left. Issues are complex though. It requires Kurds, and then plussing up the Kurds violates our NATO relationship with Turkey.

    We saw a film clip of Iraqi forces using a TOS to fight ISIS yesterday. It is a Russian weapon system that fires thermobaric rockets. We were surprised. Somebody sold them some. Terrible collateral damage, thousands of innocents will be killed but ISIS in the long run is done.

    I don't know where we fit in. With Syria and Iraq using TOS systems to fight ISIS, ISIS is doomed. I suppose Trump can't allow someone else to claim responsibility for the final defeat of ISIS.

    Parent

    aw, you know, Tracy (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    Those Bird Colonels and One-Stars know how to bullsh*t better than anyone. They don't have to give Trump exact, detailed, full plans, just a general, "we'll kick the living crap out of them, Sir, don't you worry, Mr. President." The point is, 30 days isn't nearly enough time to come up with any ready-to-deploy battle plan for a foe like ISIS.

    Consider:

    ISIS has a serious presence in 9 countries
    " "  " " " foothold in about 18 countries
    " "  " "   carried out 143 attacks in 29 countries

    (obviously, these numbers change almost daily)

    Talk about "Whack-A-Mole!"

    Parent

    One of our friends is a Colonel (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    In the middle of this mess. He wants to choke someone out. I think Trump's demanding a very specific plan.

    Parent
    Look, Trump is a pampered spoiled brat (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 05:25:52 PM EST
    Sooner or later (looks like sooner to me) he's going to push folks beyond their breaking point. I have a lot of faith in our officer corps regarding how far Trump will be able to push them for impossible/irrational goals. Everything he's touched so far has turned to sh*t. He really doesn't need a large contingent of experienced, battle hardened, senior officers resigning en masse.

    If there's one segment of government the public still has faith in it's our military. I don't think the joint chiefs are in any mood to follow inexperienced amateur politicians into more insane adventures i.e. Iraq, Syria, Libya, and our 15 year war with that global Super Power, The Afghanistan Taliban .

    Parent

    And it's McMasters! (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 10:25:46 PM EST
    Poor fool:) Not really

    An email of congratulations left our home this evening. He is near and dear to my spouse's heart. Led the 3rd ACR through some terrible situations to success in Tal Afar.

    He was involved in a recent project I at first thought was peculiar, because a different President seemed likely. We must have a beer sometime. I don't feel like feeding any trolls around here. They should earn their knowledge like everyone else. But what he was part of gives me a lot of peace of mind tonight. And it's out there, you may find it easily through investigations. Something tells me Trump didn't vet him for a Trump fit.

    Parent

    McMaster is active duty (none / 0) (#81)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26:00 AM EST
    so has to take the NSA post or end his career, I read? That he can't refuse it, unless he retires, as it's like a military posting when the Commander in Chief calls?

    Parent
    He was going to retire this year (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 01:24:28 AM EST
    He's a 3 star and they didn't have a 4 star position to promote him to. The consequences of too many officers promoted during the war years. Now the military is too top heavy.

    It's going to be strange I'm told that a 3 star is going to be telling 4 stars what to do. If McMasters didn't want this he would have stayed on retirement track.

    He's someone who works extremely difficult draining tasks and doesn't polish himself up. He's not a brown noser but he isn't defiant, he tends to get easily overlooked though. I think his intelligence intimidates his peers too. He does believe on an academic level that the existing AUMF cannot put conventional boots on the ground again. The problems and world have morphed. He believes taking the US into anything conventional boots that extends 90 days is illegal without Congress voting in a new AUMF. At least the last writing I read from him made this argument.

    Parent

    Wow! Could this be true? (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 01:08:19 AM EST
    Finally, a great, competent, experienced officer for the very critical and sensitive post, Director, National Security Council. Could things be turning around in La La Land?

    A "Lt. Gen".....Perfect, not too young, and not old enough to have grown rust. And, get this: a "warrior-scholar," expert in counter insurgency.
    And, Holy Crap....West Point Grad! We  got brains, Baby. Oh yeah, he wrote the book, "Dereliction of Duty," about the Army's screw-ups in Viet Nam. Gotta read this book, maybe I'm in it. Oh, o.k. I misread it. It's ARMY screw-ups, not Marine screw-ups.....I'm safe.

    Finally, no pencil pusher: Persian Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan. Some really impressive Major battlefield victories. Plus he looks like George Scott in "Patton."............Perfect.

    Telling it straight, it's not Trump I'm happy for; it's America....Oorah!

    Parent

    He's been pushing pencils at TRADOC (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 01:32:30 AM EST
    Lately. Writing training doctrine and taking the Apache helicopters away from the National Guard, which creates friction and hatred between active duty and Guard. And he was firing a couple thousand aviators too in the downsize. They gave him a real unenviable $hit $andwich...and now another. Does he ever get tired? His wife and daughters are all committed educators too. No Betsies around his house.

    Parent
    Tracy, honey, you're way, way (none / 0) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 03:58:49 AM EST
    ahead of me. All I know now is that we've got a smart, educated, battle tested, 3-star as head of the NSC. And, like my ex-wife used to say, "He stood in all the lines." Nobody's got a functioning crystal ball, as far as I know. I hired a lot of executives in my day. First, you require all the basics. And, then, you gotta trust your instincts that the guy/gal will know how to orchestrate them in sync for a good outcome. And, I just have a good feeling about this move. I mean, anything that adds some law, order, and competence to the Clown Show that's been the White House up to now has got to be a plus, no?

    Anyway, I'm an unapologetic super-optimist by nature. When we left Russia to settle our butts 6,000 miles away my sainted mother, the Crazy Cossack, Ilona Kandaurova, sat me down, and said, "Boy, you Amerikan now, and don't you forget it!" Pounding her right fist into her left palm, Smack! just to emphasize the point. Cossacks are nuts, as I'm sure you probably know, I took her seriously.

    Finally, surprised our vaunted, very dedicated, very respected journalist fraternity hasn't informed the public about some very good news:
    "China to suspend all imports of coal from North Korea." Coal is about 40% of N. Korea's exports, all of it used to go to China. This is gonna hurt them really bad. So China, America, and the rest of the U.N. Security Council got together and said to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, "Yo, Boy Lunatic, you thought we were fooling when we told you to stop playing with those ballistic missiles over the Pacific Ocean? Well, we got an orange skulled President Nuttier than you, fool, and, he don't like that. So, now you can throw chunks of coal into the ocean instead, and pretend they're missiles with a bomb on top." N. Korea's missile test was generally regarded as the expected first test of the Trump Presidency. With all the major Powers pulling the plug on N. Korea's coal exports you might say they got an "F" on that test result.

    Understandably, all the major "Journalist" outlets were pretty miffed that some really good news spoiled their Gong Show, Ridiculous Headline Contest Shenanigans. Amazon News President, Jeff Bozo, confidently boasted, "If you think we're going to be distracted by this Major Power cooperation, and reduced nuclear war danger, in other words, A "Nothing Burger," you gotta be crazy. Why would we possibly exert ourselves to do so-called, "real journalism," when all we need to do is to ask our SNL Headline writers to come up with something like, "Anonymous witness claims he witnessed Ivanka Trump doing the naughty with a Wino in the White House." "Wino in the White House," get it?" Hey, we're responsible to our shareholders, you know?

    "Ka-Ching," the new National Anthem.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 08:19:19 PM EST
    All of the generals now in the administration

    fit your description  

    Finally, a great, competent, experienced officer for the very critical and sensitive post,

    A very solid staff

    Parent

    Yeah, it's one of the reasons (none / 0) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 27, 2017 at 08:18:19 PM EST
    why I doubt the world will be coming to an end any time soon. Trump may be unqualified for the office he holds but it's the cabinet secretaries and the courts that should hold him in check. We may not like the politics his appointees adhere to, but, at  least, they're, "qualified."

    That, and the fact that the intelligence agencies have probably already told him who runs this country, and, surprise, it ain't him.

    Parent

    This is a very good appointment. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 04:14:40 AM EST
    I have a lot of respect for Gen. McMasters, who's clearly not afraid to speak truth to power.

    His book about the Vietnam War, "Dereliction of Duty," an expansion of his doctoral thesis which directly criticized Army brass at the time for failing to be completely honest and forthright with President Johnson and being much too deferential to Defense Sec. Robert MacNamara, landed him in a lot of hot water with his superiors at the Pentagon, and he was initially passed over for promotion. But he never backed down and rode it out.

    We'll see how McMasters copes with Steve Bannon. I really can't imagine him putting up with that guy for very long.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The Steve Bannon thing is going (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 08:15:44 AM EST
    To be Interestingly? I'm trying to be optimistic.

    Parent
    Good to have (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 02:52:01 PM EST
    your assessment of Lt. General HR McMasters.  I hoped he might actually be good and not just in relation to the miscreants that Trump has appointed so far. Or, of course, compared with the 24-day wonder, General Flynn.

     And, the recommendations of Senator Tom Cotton and Michael O'Hanlon did not engender a lot of confidence.  It does seem that General McMasters, being on active duty, can up and leave if he finds it necessary and take retirement.

    Parent

    I don't know what to make of Tom Cotton (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 07:36:21 PM EST
    His military record is stellar true blue. People do serve from all over the political spectrum in pristine service.

    Secretly, I think it's the rumors and self hatred that lead to such a juxtapose of service and hate filled fanaticism that is seen in Cotton.

    McMasters is what we kind of call in this house "new military". More human, less mechanical. Mangum is similar. And there is a sort of love/hate thing in the military with that. And sometimes military authority wants to purge that BS, so they held McMasters back until Petraeus stepped in.

    My spouse has a new dream job though (never going to phucking retire), he was recommended by Mangum. They expanded to accept two warrants. The other warrant is coming from McMasters.

    Parent

    Their caliphate is kaput though (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 02:06:00 PM EST
    They won't be able to survive the firepower Russia brought in.

    Parent
    The fake part is in the claim (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 08:32:31 PM EST
    that Trump wanted to do this or that it was even considered. It didn't even make it to Kelly.

    Trump reportedly weighing use of National Guard

    Boston Globe

    While we're at it, doesn't the state governor have to release the NG to the feds? During Katrina I remember the governor of LA would not turn over command to the feds which led to a lot of back and forth about coordination.

    Parent

    It's certainly in fitting (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 09:42:12 PM EST
    with the manner of rough-hewn thinking of someone who said he wanted to jail women who'd had an abortion.

    Parent
    I will (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 07:35:14 AM EST
    agree with you, the headline is a bit of hackery(par for the course among headline writers, IMO). They merely shortened the very first line in the story
    The Trump administration considered a proposal....
    which appears to be 100% true.

    Sorry Jim, Trump now owns everything that the executive branch does whether it's from the top down, middle out or bottom up.

    Trump's cries of fake news are merely feeble attempts to "pass the buck", no Harry Truman there for sure.

    Parent

    Whether Trump owns or doesn't own (2.33 / 3) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:02:44 AM EST
    aside the fact remains that the headline is fake.

    Worse, many people will just nod and believe.

    What it is is propaganda by biased reporters designed to try and delegitimize Trump.

    No Harry Truman?? Heck, Obama ran him off 8 years ago.

    Parent

    No, Jim, once again, the headline (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:34:15 AM EST
    is not "fake." The Boston Globe (in this instance) published a genuine story from the AP, which is a highly professional and needless-to-say genuine news outlet, about a genuine draft of a proposed Administration policy, originating inside the Administration.  The headline, like most headlines, tries imperfectly to capture the essence of the story. Criticism of the precision of a newspaper headline is in no way equivalent to exposing a news story as "fake."  Wrong is also not "fake," by the way, athough this story was not even wrong. "Fake news" is simulated news that is entirely invented, having no genuine source outside the writer's imagination, like a story in The Onion (although not meant as satire, but rather as manipulation, typically). Essentially none of what Tr*mp has called "fake news" is that.

    Parent
    Peter, something coming from a (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 05:10:50 PM EST
    "genuine" bank may be a counterfeit that slipped through.

    And yes the headline is imperfect.

    That's what they have editors for.

    Here again is the headline:

    Trump reportedly weighing use of National Guard

    I have to admire the qualifier "reportedly" they slipped in. That's the first tip that the story is meant to create a fake impression. Perhaps the synonym "sham" as an adjective is a better description. I offer the following.

    The paper was put together by low level staffers.

    It was not given to Kelly so there is no reason to belief that it ever reached Trump.

    Yet the headline brings to mind Trump looking off into the distance while he ponders using the NG to herd undocumented persons into prisons.

    If the writer, and editor, had wanted to be accurate it would have read:

    Trump low level staffers discuss use of National Guard in smaller font and leading into..."and prepared a paper but didn't even submit it to Kelly."

    Parent

    You know for an absolute fact it (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 05:22:18 PM EST
    came from "low level staffers" how?

    Because you were there and witnessed the entire drafting and re-drafting process first hand?

    Why should anyone accept your account as any less spin-ridden than the one the newspapers gave?

    Parent

    Buck Passing (none / 0) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 05:38:20 PM EST
    101: Blame "low level staffers" ASAP.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 05:56:09 PM EST
    you can't blame them; they're still upset and frazzled over what happened in Sweden the other night.

    Parent
    Present Day Trump Apologists (none / 0) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 06:02:20 PM EST
    would be well to enroll in Arborist School. Safety 101 course outline says "Do not go too far out on a limb"   It is likely, to your regret, that a saw may be in your future.  (This public service message approved by Betsy DeVos)

    Parent
    Nonsense. Not fake headline (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    and not fake news.  The headline happened, so it is not fake.  And the memo re deploying the Guard came from within the Trump administration, so that news is not fake.

    If you are going to attempt to engage on a topic, learn the correct terminology . . . or look as uneducated and ill-informed as Trump.

    The term you mean is "poor news judgment."

    Parent

    Was the possible deployment (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 04:53:17 PM EST
    of The national Guard for the purpose of rounding up, and deporting, approximately 10-12 million undocumented workers, the one and only plan the Administration "considered?"

    Isn't it standard practice, whether by Corporations, or, Government agencies, to request numerous submissions for accomplishing the stated project?

    Parent

    And no. I don't want to talk about Katrina. (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 08:33:56 PM EST
    That was just an example re NG control.

    Parent
    Good jim (3.00 / 2) (#23)
    by fishcamp on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 06:35:34 AM EST
    we don't want you to talk about Katrina

    Parent
    Sorry jim (none / 0) (#50)
    by fishcamp on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 03:27:42 PM EST
    I didn't mean to include everybody in my comment.  I meant I didn't want to hear you speak about Katrina.

    Parent
    That is why (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 08:42:31 PM EST
    the memo mentions coordination with states regarding the NG.

    Apparently it was something that was considered as DHS had a meeting about it. Anyway at this point any thought of it happening is DOA due to the memo being leaked.

    Parent

    George W Bush federalized the National Guard (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 12:39:45 AM EST
    During the Iraq War. The legislation stands. The President now out commands a governor on National Guard troops. A President does not require a Governor's anything to deploy National Guard troops now from any state and National Guard remain in deployment rotations in the War on Terror though the pace has slowed dramatically.

    Parent
    That argument might hold during times ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 03:09:24 AM EST
    ... of international crisis, even if the crisis in Iraq was one manufactured by the late Bush administration.

    But any attempt by the president to mobilize the National Guard for his own ends in order to carry out a controversial domestic policy, will very likely trigger a showdown in federal court to determine the extent of the federal government's authority of a given state's National Guard versus that of its governor.

    I would think that particularly holds true in a state like California, where both a decided majority of the populace and their political leadership are squarely aligned and united in open opposition to the president's stated policy of deporting undocumented immigrants.

    What happens if substantial numbers of California National Guardsmen, and even perhaps whole units, side with Gov. Brown and the State Attorney General, and refuse to comply with the president's directive on moral grounds? That would be a very real possibility here, given prevailing public opinion in their state. Does Trump then court martial them all? Bring in National Guard units from other states to carry out his orders?

    It would certainly be a stretch to argue that any mass deportation of up to 11 million undocumented and mostly Latino immigrants is somehow consistent with our stated policy goals in the so-called "War on Terror."

    Rather, I'd offer that this anti-immigrant initiative is entirely a domestic concern, since it's based upon President* Trump's personal desire to pander to the worst fears and instincts of his increasingly bigoted and irrational political base.

    Both U.S. District Court Judge James Robart of Seattle and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals only recently rejected the government's argument for its proposed immigration ban based upon a pending threat to national security, noting that there was no real evidentiary grounds for such a contention.

    While I'm not an attorney and wouldn't presume that their ruling is applicable to anything more than the immediate matter that was before them, I'd really like to believe that similar logic would prevail here.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Heres a (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 06:09:46 AM EST
    decent take, President Trump's True Power Over the National Guard, Explained

    Apparently the Guard can exist in two modes, normally they are considered "state troops"(albeit funded by the Feds) not covered by Posse Comitas, however they can be at any time be turned into "federal troops" by the President (by decree?) and the law does apply.

    Parent
    Spicer? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 19, 2017 at 08:42:34 PM EST
    He has no credibility.

    Parent
    If anything is "fake news" (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 11:08:04 AM EST
    by the definition that Jim and President* Tr*mp are using, it would seem to be the claim fostered by Fox "News," based on an unexamined assertion by one Islamophobic Swedish "filmmaker" (i.e., a YouTube video-creater), that Muslim refugees are driving up the crime rate in Sweden.

    Parent
    Yes, fake news is (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 12:26:07 PM EST
    the problem....that coming from Trump, although, in his defense, his solid defense is that that is what someone told him (e.g., FOX report, or an unidentified someone).  As for the media's fake news, Pence said, while in Brussels, that he and Trump will continue to call out the media when it plays fast and loose with the facts.  So, there is that.

    Parent
    In other words, as we discussed (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    yesterday, the "fake news" accusation is yet another instance of projection.

    Parent
    Say (none / 0) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 03:49:50 PM EST
    Yep, free-speech not an issue, after all (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 05:47:21 PM EST
    for the wingers.  Then what could have been their motivation for promoting Milo and his ilk, hmmmm?

    And Milo also lost his book contract.  Wait, isn't it a free-speech issue?  Don't publishers have to give him a platform?  Hahahahaha.

    Having witnessed his public humiliation of a student on my campus, I'm just happy to see the end of this, I hope.  But somehow, I suspect that the opportunist may rise again as repentant a la MSNBC's Charlie Sykes, ugh.

    Parent

    I saw that (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 03:55:31 PM EST
    and I thought I guess all the other stuff he said was just fine but apparently this last thing was not. Yes, the last thing he said was bad but I would say a lot of his other stuff is nearly as bad.

    Parent
    What are all those closeted-repubs (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 04:04:17 PM EST
    who booked men's room stalls weeks in advance going to do now?

    Parent
    CPAC, (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 04:58:23 PM EST
    no federal funds.  Milo on "just coming of age relationships" per "Father Michael," was not so funny for this group.   Milo needed to stick to his schtick---racism, white supremacy, misogyny, transphobis, self-loathing anti-gay, gay.   Maybe a former Republican Speaker as replacement speaker will work.

    Parent
    can we post on this topic here? (none / 0) (#76)
    by linea on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 08:46:39 PM EST
    at this point, i have yet to read any confirmation that milo y. actually endorsed or supported pedophilia. i appologize if waiting for all the facts makes anyone here angry or frustrated with me. it just seems one would want to get clarification before making such an accusation. sorry.

    per cnnnews.com:

    Right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was trying to clarify past comments on relationships between boys and older men after a conservative site posted a collection of edited video clips that set social media abuzz....

    Yiannopoulos wrote on Facebook blamed deceptive editing and his own "sloppy phrasing" for any indication he supported pedophilia.

    The British author says he spoke of his own relationship when he was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the U.K. is 16.

    It's unclear who edited the videos.



    Parent
    We got clarification. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:30:51 PM EST
    You can, too.  See: the news.

    Parent
    Once again, you apologize for stating (none / 0) (#78)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 20, 2017 at 09:11:14 PM EST
    your opinion. Why? Does anyone else on this site do that? Why should you, Linea?
       That said, I think you are missing the point. The theme of the comments (here) on this story is that the Wingers who pretended until yesterday to be all offended by "The Left" denying poor Milo his "free speech" rights by being angrily opposed to his offensive opinions are themselves now shutting him down, denying him a platform, and declaring him to be a pariah because of offensive (to some people) things he has said about his homosexuality. It's the hypocrisy; I don't believe I see folks here saying he actually should be silenced for expressing what I believe to be a legitimate point of view about consensual sexual relations between teenagers and adults, and in particular the sexual activities of some gay teens who are condemned by their own parents.

    Parent
    ... on the right -- and the left, too, for that matter, only we don't have anywhere near as many of them -- will always find something to get their underwear in a twist. It's what they do best, and it's far easier than having to discuss and analyze actual policy development. And likely more financially lucrative, too.

    Parent