Thursday, April 26, 2018

Maxine Waters to Trump: Please Resign so I Don’t Have to Impeach You


Ed. Once again, proof positive that liberals are thoroughly shameless. Otherwise, Waters’ fellow Democrats would have forced this brainless hack to resign years ago.

The following article appeared in Breitbart on April 25th

By Katherine Rodriguez

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), in an interview at the Time 100 Gala on Tuesday, said her advice to President Trump is to “please resign.”
What a charmer

The interviewer asked Waters if she had any advice for the president, and the California Democrat did not mince words.

“Please resign,” said Waters, one of Trump’s most vocal critics, after being honored at the Time 100 Gala in New York. “So that I won’t have to keep up this fight of your having impeached because I don’t think you deserve to be there. Just get out.”

Waters made the 2018 list of Time 100’s “most influential people” along with the anti-gun Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student activists, the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, and Trump himself.

Actress Yara Shahidi wrote the tribute to Waters, praising her for leading the movement to “impeach” Trump.

“She is adored and admired by people who care about social justice and is oh so eloquent in letting the world, particularly the white men of Congress who dare test her acumen, know that she is not here for any nonsense,” Shahidi wrote.
Incredible

Waters has made it a point as a congresswoman to criticize Trump or call for his resignation or impeachment.

In an interview with Bloomberg in November 2017, she said she “inspires” people by calling for Trump’s impeachment.

Waters has even resorted to personal attacks, calling the president a “racist” when she appeared on BET in February to give her response to Trump’s State of the Union address.

She also declined to attend this year’s State of the Union to protest Trump’s “character flaw.”

Trump Travel Ban Has Good Day at Supreme Court


The following article appeared in Breitbart on April 25th

By Ken Klukowski

WASHINGTON, DC – President Donald Trump had a good day at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in the “travel ban” case involving immigrants from terror-prone nations, as a majority of the justices seemed to signal their agreement with the president’s lawyers on key points.
SCOTUS will overturn unlawful rulings by lib judges

Wednesday’s oral arguments were the climax of an epic legal struggle that began during the president’s first week in office, when he signed Executive Order 13769 to enact “extreme vetting” for immigrants entering this country, later replaced by Executive Order 13780. Both of those interim measures were superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645, banning entry into the United States from seven terror-prone nations, subject to case-by-case waivers from the State Department.

Congress, through federal law 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) empowers the president to “suspend entry” by “proclamation” for “any aliens or class of aliens” he finds would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” President Trump’s September 27, 2017, proclamation is such a measure. Liberal-leaning majorities on a couple federal courts blocked the president at every turn.

The Supreme Court is tackling four issues: (1) whether the courts even have authority to decide this matter; (2) whether the proclamation is permitted by the central federal immigration law, the Immigration and National Act (INA); (3) whether the policy violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause; and (4) whether the trial court’s worldwide injunction in this case is overbroad.

“After a worldwide multi-agency review, the president’s acting homeland security secretary recommended that he adopt entry restrictions on countries that failed to provide the minimum baseline information needed to vet their nationals,” U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco began at the Supreme Court on behalf of the Trump administration. “The proclamation adopts those recommendations. It omits the vast majority of the world, including the vast majority of the Muslim world, because they met the baseline.”

Congress in the Immigration and National Act (INA) defines which aliens can be admitted into this nation. Francisco explained that this baseline is providing sufficient information to make an “intelligent decision” as to whether a person can be allowed into the United States under the INA.

Comparing it to immigration proclamations by President Jimmy Carter regarding Iran and President Ronald Reagan regarding Cuba, Justice Anthony Kennedy remarked that President Trump’s Proclamation 9645 gave much more detail on why the government concluded each impacted country posed a safety risk.

Francisco agreed, informing Kennedy that “This is the most detailed proclamation ever issued in American history.”

Justice Elena Kagan pushed back, saying that the government argued that by raising national security, any legal challenge would be “game over,” and asking about a hypothetical president who might get “elected who is a vehement anti-Semite and says all kinds of denigrating comments about Jews” and trying to keep all Jewish people out of the country.

Francisco responded that Cabinet officers would never give a president recommendations that would lead to such a far-fetched situation and instead would resign before implementing a “plainly unconstitutional order.” He also said such an order would be facially illegitimate, and therefore could be challenged.

One item on which the challengers may score a point is trying to include Trump’s campaign statements as evidence. Kennedy balked, saying that if someone running for a local mayor makes “hateful statements,” then the next day gets elected and takes office and then acts consistent with those statements, that “whatever he said in the campaign is irrelevant?”

Francisco explained that Proclamation 9645 is “not a so-called Muslim Ban,” saying, “It would be the most ineffective … one could possibly imagine since not only does it exclude the vast majority of the Muslim world, it also omits three Muslim-majority countries that were covered by past orders, including Iraq, Chad, and Sudan.”

Chief Justice John Roberts sharply questioned Supreme Court heavyweight Neal Katyal when he took the podium representing Hawaii and the challengers, asking if the president could unilaterally block all entry from Syria for a full week if he believed someone entering that week was carrying chemical weapons.

Katyal responded that such a move would be okay, but this policy cannot be compared to that because President Trump has had a year to get Congress to address the real-life situation through legislation.

Roberts skeptically shot back, “Imagine, if you can, that Congress is unable to act when the president asked for legislation.” The courtroom burst into laughter in America’s current hyper-partisan gridlock.

“Congress did act,” Justice Samuel Alito hit back against Katyal. “It enacted 1182(f).”

Kennedy also appeared to reject a key part of Katyal’s argument – that 1182(f) proclamations cannot be permanent policy that may usurp Congress’s role – by noting that the proclamation says it will be reexamined every 180 days, and that § 1182(f) specifies they can last “for such period as he deems necessary.”

If the Court holds that President Trump’s proclamation is authorized by the INA, it will then reach the issue of whether Proclamation 9645 violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which forbids Congress from establishing an official national religion. Hawaii argues that the proclamation officially discriminates against Islam, and therefore is unconstitutional.

Pushing back against Katyal’s arguing for a liberal Establishment Clause standard in this case, Alito said with obvious skepticism, “Would any reasonable observer reading this proclamation, without taking into account statements, think this was a Muslim ban?”

Justice Neil Gorsuch went further, noting that “It’s been a long time since this Court has used the Lemon test [meaning the reasonable observer test or “endorsement test”],” possibly suggesting that he was reluctant to revive that test developed by a much more liberal Supreme Court majority decades ago, and applying that test in a new context.

Gorsuch also went after the district court’s issuing an injunction blocking Proclamation 9645 everywhere on earth. America is divided into 94 judicial districts, and typically a trial court can issue an order that is only broad enough to address the parties in the case. Here, the judge blocked President Trump’s policy everywhere.

The Court’s newest justice expressed deep concern about how that has been done repeatedly since President Trump’s inauguration, saying, “We have this troubling rise of this nationwide injunction – cosmic injunction.”

Katyal did not even defend what many characterize as a judicial power-grab, saying, “I share your impulse, Justice Gorsuch.”

A decision is expected by the end of June.

Science, Consensus and Polar Bears


The following article appeared in Powerline on April 25th

By John Hinderaker

Polar bears have become an icon of the global warming movement. The theory is that global warming reduces the volume of Arctic sea ice, which in turn impacts polar bear habitat. Notwithstanding the fact that polar bears have survived through multiple ice ages and warm periods, and in recent years polar bear populations have grown rather than shrinking, the Left finds it convenient to use them for political purposes.


Polar Bear Science is a web site run by Susan Crockford, one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears, with over 35 years of experience and many scientific publications. Recently, she was viciously attacked in the New York Times (where else) by leftists who were outraged that she pointed out the fact, based on published data, that climate alarmists’ predictions about polar bear populations have not come true.

At Polar Bear Science, polar bear specialist Mitchell Taylor writes about scientific accountability in the degraded era in which we live. Who is Dr. Taylor?

Dr. Mitch Taylor was a member of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) as a polar bear scientist representing Canada for 28 years (1981-2008) but in 2009 he was booted out by chairman Andrew Derocher for his skeptical views on human-caused global warming. The group then changed their rules on membership to justify their actions.

Dr. Taylor writes:

It has become a lot more difficult to talk about polar bears since they became an icon for climate change as a cause.

The new model [Regehr et al. 2016] guarantees that polar bears will decline by decoupling the model’s population projections from climate model forecasts of sea ice conditions….
Add caption

[Footnote: By de-coupling I meant that Regehr’s model [Regehr et al. 2016] has no input from the GCMs [General Circulation Models] for sea ice dynamics. If you suddenly reduced CO2 levels somehow, the GCMs would respond by predicting an increase in sea ice. Regehr’s model uses a simple regression fit to sea ice decline as measured since the satellite record began in 1979. As you know, sea ice declined faster than the GCMs predicted. So the PBSG has have given up on the climate models and now they just use the historical slope to project continued sea ice decline forward. In other words, their current argument for up-listing polar bears due to anthropogenic global warming is now entirely independent of atmospheric CO2 levels. It seems the PBSG agrees that climate models are not predictive with respect to sea ice which was their central argument for up-listing them in the first place.


As practiced by the alarmists, climate “science” has no integrity.

There are two ways to get a scientific consensus. One is to present the data and the analysis in a manner that is so persuasive that everyone is convinced. The other way is to exclude or marginalize anyone who does not agree. This occurs so commonly now that it has become an accepted practice. The practice of science has become secondary to governments, NGOs, journals, and scientists who feel that the ends justify the means.

The response to Susan’s work is politically motivated, not an argument against her conclusions. The journal’s response to this article and to her complaint was also political. Sadly, BioScience is not a credible scientific journal anymore. We have fake news and fake science.

Fake science is a good description for pretty much all global warming alarmism.

Chai update: Sen. Lee is steadfast in his opposition


Ed. Read Author Mirengoff's first offering on the far-left Chai Feldblum HERE.

The following article appeared in Powerline on April 25th

By Paul Mirengoff

Sen. Mike Lee has been holding out against the renomination of Chai Feldblum for another term as EEOC Commissioner. Feldblum is the architect of the Obama administration’s LGBT policy and an enemy of religious freedom in virtually all cases where it stands in the way of gay “dignity,” as she sees it.

Chai Feldblum
I have heard that this week, Senate leadership is making another push to confirm Feldblum, along with two Republican nominees to the Commission. The idea, as I understand it, is to “sweeten” the deal by throwing in President Trump’s nominee for EEOC General Counsel.

I’m happy to report that Sen. Lee remains “steadfast” in opposing Feldblum. His office assures me that throwing in the nominee for General Counsel, whom the GOP Senate can already confirm without Democratic help, doesn’t sweeten anything.

Mike Lee deserves major credit for blocking Chai Feldblum’s nomination. He’s not just standing up to leadership, he’s also resisting pressure from some conservatives who want him to accept the Feldblum package in order to give Republicans an instant majority on the Commission.

As noted, though, Republicans control the Senate, albeit barely. They have the ability to confer majority status at the EEOC on Republicans without swallowing Feldblum.

The other point I want to make pertains to the alliance between social conservatives and economic conservatives/business interests. In Feldblum’s case, there is a tension. Feldblum has been so aggressive in trampling religious interests that she’s become unacceptable to social conservatives. They regard her, correctly in my view, as worse than a generic left-liberal on key social issues.
Feldblum and her, uh, ...

Thus, the business case (so to speak) in favor of confirming Feldblum, even assuming there is one, will not move most strong social conservatives. Feldblum represents a red line.

If the traditional alliance between social conservatives and economic conservatives is to be maintained, each faction (so the speak) must respect the other’s red lines. Some economic conservatives believe, in good faith, that there’s a good case for confirming the Feldblum package. But this is hardly a red line issue for them.

So again, I believe Sen. Lee deserves great credit for enforcing the red line against Chai Feldblum.