Bill would ban bicyclists from most 2-lane roads in Montana

[Andre Jute]

Bill would ban bicyclists from most 2-lane roads in Montana:
http://www.kpax.com/story/34308290/bill-would-ban-bicyclists-from-most-2-lane-roads-in-montana

The bill is sponsored by one Usher, a Harley-Davidson dealer...

Andre Jute
And it's not even April 1at

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Since this is against Federal regulations I wouldn't worry about this too much.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

what regulations ?

[jbeattie]

Good question. The legislation applies to state roads. I rode across Montana, and I've got to say that some of the cow-towns were positively hostile to cyclists, even though cyclist brought a lot of money into those tiny towns (typically a bar, store, gas station). I walked into a bar in wearing shorts -- not bike shorts, just shorts -- and a bunch of guys in cowboy hats just glowered at me. I should have gotten a cowboy hat in Missoula. I felt like the black guy in Bensonhurst.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tim McNamara]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:58:58 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>

Hey, folks, tip of the iceberg if yer not a "real 'Merican." Which is
code for conforming to the new political correctness of conservative,
evangelical, white and sick and tired of having to put up with people
who are different from you.

We've got family in Montana and some of them have just exploded with
right wing bile since the election. The cork on years of simmering rage
just got popped and it's not gonna stop for a good long while. Liberals
tend to underestimate the depth of far-right conservative hatred of
them, and people on bicycles must be liberals.

It may be an uncomfortable four years for people pedaling their way
around in some parts of the US. I hear increasing talk locally and on
other forums of bolder aggression by people in cars and trucks and on
motorcycles. They think we're on "their" roads and getting in "their"
way.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/subtitle-IV/part-B/chapter-145
49 U.S. Code § 14501
(A)
shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles, the authority of a State to impose highway route controls or limitations based on the size or weight of the motor vehicle or the hazardous nature of the cargo, or the authority of a State to regulate motor carriers with regard to minimum amounts of financial responsibility relating to insurance requirements and self-insurance authorization;

how translate to bicycles ?

61-8-602, MCA. Traffic laws applicable to persons operating bicycles or mopeds.
A person operating a bicycle or moped is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by chapter 7, chapter 9, and this chapter except for special regulations in this part or the provisions of chapter 7, chapter 9, and this chapter that by their nature cannot apply

61-8-605, MCA. Riding on roadways

(4) A bicyclist is not expected or required to ride:

(b) without a reasonable margin of safety on the right side of the roadway.

- operative clause

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Last night on the UC Berkeley Campus showed the true agenda of the left. Not for their own freedoms but to stifle others. That was what the 8 years of Obama was all about.

It came out this morning that cops won't work in California. So all of the police in large cities are people who have been thrown off of other police forces or those who could not pass the psychological tests to become police elsewhere.

That is why they have been ordered to do NOTHING. They simply cannot be trusted with a gun.

[jbeattie]

Did you not know that the Berkeley riot was a false-flag operation by the Illuminati? Obama is not directly involved, but he is the leader of a cabal of reptilians from the dark side of Uranus, and the reptilians have been providing the Illuminati with intelligence and materiel. A third group, a loose association of disaffected clowns from the defunct Ringling Bros. Circus, have been practicing mind-control on local law enforcement, causing them to lay down their weapons. The entire operation was being run out of a pizza and ping-pong joint in downtown Poughkeepsie.

-- Jay Beattie.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

> That is why they have been ordered to do NOTHING. They simply cannot be mlies brain dysfunction


use of 'that' is this and this is that implies brain dysfunction.

please be logical. rember this is a bicycle forum not an analysis of your opinions on current events

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

downtown silicon valley.

[Frank Krygowski]

I wonder if times have changed? We did our coast to coast in 2003, and
we were treated very well. Of course, I was riding with two cute
ladies; that may have made a difference.

We did feel out of place going into some of the bars out in the sticks.
(And on a hot Montana day, you don't dare pass up a watering hole; the
next one may be 50 miles further.) But guys were always friendly once
the ice was broken.

I've told this before, but: At one tiny town we got a room in a
purported "motel" that was actually a house trailer. We changed out of
cycling clothes, then went looking for supper. The only restaurant was
a biker bar. In there, we got in conversation with some Harley riders.

I asked the one guy where he was from, and his chest swelled with pride
as he said "I rode here all the way from Minnesota. How about you?"

We said "We're bicycling coast to coast. We started from Delaware."

His chest deflated and he looked suddenly crestfallen. He said "Wow.
You guys are _really_ tough!"


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Firearm for crowd control?? wimps.

Back in the olden days the standard riot tactic was a wooden
shampoo with a police baton. Ask me how I know that.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Doug Landau]

What's a wooden shampoo and how would you know?

[AMuzi]

Because I was smacked in the head with one. It hurts.

[Doug Landau]

Madison Riots
http://havenscenter.org/vsp/paul_buhle_amp_tom_hayden

[Frank Krygowski]

What were you rioting about?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Wasn't there. My adventure was the next August in Grant Park:
http://68.media.tumblr.com/21157931b3fa9a968378871b21c10b4b/tumblr_n8lzykiB4i1rk4fqyo1_1280.jpg

[AMuzi]

mostly hanging out and chatting up cute girls.

p.s. you may not believe this, but there was a time in
America when young people favored free speech, exercised
rights of assembly/petition and believed strongly that the
1st Amendment mattered.

[Frank Krygowski]

I wasn't aware that stuff had gone away.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Doug Landau]

Looking for you in the pic, where are you

[AMuzi]

All gone away. The incident at Berzerkely last night
typifies, 'free speech means someone's feelings may be
hurt'. Firebombs are so much more expressive now.

[Frank Krygowski]

I didn't pay attention to Berkely. But as I recall, several* women
visited Washington recently, exercised their rights of assembly and
petition and threw no firebombs. I know some of the women who took
part, and they qualify as young in my book.

(* Regarding "several": If I recall correctly, even Trump's crew
admitted that there may have been as many as a dozen women there!)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Doug Landau]

That's "Berkeley"

[Andre Jute]

There's an in-between, where the police would instruct the fire department to turn their hoses on rioters they didn't want to hurt too much.

Andre Jute
I've always found it more efficient to insinuate myself as an eminence grise making ineluctable rational cases than to riot in the streets

[jbeattie]

I think the good old boys were communicating with the same kind of firebombs 50 years ago. http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/birmingham-church-bombing

Not that I think people should be communicating with firebombs -- or any kind of violence. They shouldn't block traffic either. And get a haircut.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

I have to agree with you. Since 1950 I have lived in a number of
states from the east coast to the west coast and in many Asian
countries and I don't remember any inappropriate acts or comments.
Admittedly, in some cases I didn't speak the language and so wouldn't
have understood inappropriate comments, but still.

By the same token, I have always tried to act and speak in an
appropriate manner.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

Oh, Berkeley was a conspiracy all right, as so many of these riots are. David French, and attorney, lays out who is responsible at
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444544/berkeley-riots-milo-yiannopoulos-california-mayor-free-speech
and it is well worth studying the photographs and the linked video.

Andre Jute
Just the facts, pal

[jbeattie]

Like I said below, bomb-throwing is not protected speech and the "anarchist" (what we call them up here and how they self-identify) have been showing up at protests for years -- or decades or even centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

However, I would take issue with the suggestion in the article that all speech is protected by the First Amendment. It isn't, and the First Amendment does not protect any speech from non-governmental regulation. Your girl friend or next door neighbor can tell you to STF up. People can gather outside your home and protest your books -- assuming they don't violate any laws. They can burn copies of "It's the Economy, Stupid." Maybe they don't like being called "stupid"! Down with Andre Jute! He thinks transgender, differently-abled, sisters of color are dumb!

Anyway, there is nothing prohibiting individuals from shouting-down other individuals -- except the tort (defamation/anti-SLAPP) and criminal laws. Does the Berkeley protest (even apart from the violent faction) signal the death of healthy on-campus debate? Yes. Are manners dead? Yes. IMO, the only thing we can do is wait for students to become exhausted. My son is exhausted by the political correctness on campus, and he's not alone. He likes listening to the pariahs -- he even went to see Trump in SLC -- although it was more for the circus atmosphere and on a lark.

You never know. Manners may return one day along with LPs and Trilby hats. What this election has taught me is that both society and government depend in large part on unwritten rules -- manners, social convention, shared values. When either side forgets those things, then the whole system starts falling apart.

-- Jay Beattie.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 2/3/17 4:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> You never know. Manners may return one day along with LPs and Trilby hats. What this election has taught me is that both society and government depend in large part on unwritten rules -- manners, social convention, shared values. When either side forgets those things, then the whole system starts falling apart.

And since large numbers of _both_ sides have abandoned them, ....

--
Wes Groleau

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

WE WILL KEEP TRUMP ET AL PINNED DOWN FOR FOUR YEARS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/help-standing-rock-sioux-dakota-access-pipeline_us_583480c9e4b000af95eca013

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:33:35 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:11:17 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:50:44 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:43:28 AM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Last night on the UC Berkeley Campus showed the true agenda of the left. Not for their own freedoms but to stifle others. That was what the 8 years of Obama was all about.
> > > >
> > > > It came out this morning that cops won't work in California. So all of the police in large cities are people who have been thrown off of other police forces or those who could not pass the psychological tests to become police elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > That is why they have been ordered to do NOTHING. They simply cannot be trusted with a gun.
> > >
> > > Did you not know that the Berkeley riot was a false-flag operation by the Illuminati? Obama is not directly involved, but he is the leader of a cabal of reptilians from the dark side of Uranus, and the reptilians have been providing the Illuminati with intelligence and materiel. A third group, a loose association of disaffected clowns from the defunct Ringling Bros. Circus, have been practicing mind-control on local law enforcement, causing them to lay down their weapons. The entire operation was being run out of a pizza and ping-pong joint in downtown Poughkeepsie.
> > >
> > > -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > Oh, Berkeley was a conspiracy all right, as so many of these riots are. David French, and attorney, lays out who is responsible at
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444544/berkeley-riots-milo-yiannopoulos-california-mayor-free-speech
> > and it is well worth studying the photographs and the linked video.
>
> Like I said below, bomb-throwing is not protected speech and the "anarchist" (what we call them up here and how they self-identify) have been showing up at protests for years -- or decades or even centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
>
> However, I would take issue with the suggestion in the article that all speech is protected by the First Amendment. It isn't, and the First Amendment does not protect any speech from non-governmental regulation. Your girl friend or next door neighbor can tell you to STF up. People can gather outside your home and protest your books -- assuming they don't violate any laws. They can burn copies of "It's the Economy, Stupid." Maybe they don't like being called "stupid"! Down with Andre Jute! He thinks transgender, differently-abled, sisters of color are dumb!

"It's the Economy, Stupid" is a direct quote from Bill Clinton. I don't think "transgender, differently-abled, sisters of color are dumb", as you claim; I just don't think of them at all.

> Anyway, there is nothing prohibiting individuals from shouting-down other individuals -- except the tort (defamation/anti-SLAPP) and criminal laws.

Really? That's a lawyer speaking. There are endless other tools one can use, from subliminal suggestion through publicity to financial pressure to cheekbone highlights with a couple of bricks.

>Does the Berkeley protest (even apart from the violent faction) signal the death of healthy on-campus debate? Yes. Are manners dead? Yes. IMO, the only thing we can do is wait for students to become exhausted.

That's a loser's counsel. (Or the father of a student...) I think the Feds should identify the ring leaders and charge them. Why should they be allowed to get away with assaulting bystanders just because they're students? What sort of example does that set?

>My son is exhausted by the political correctness on campus, and he's not alone. He likes listening to the pariahs -- he even went to see Trump in SLC -- although it was more for the circus atmosphere and on a lark.
>
> You never know. Manners may return one day along with LPs and Trilby hats. What this election has taught me is that both society and government depend in large part on unwritten rules -- manners, social convention, shared values. When either side forgets those things, then the whole system starts falling apart.

The problem is that every other liberty hangs on the possibility of free speech. One could even argue that every liberty hangs on having an effective press, though the current bunch of lapdogs of the left have demonstrated only that in their absence the people will do a slap-up job of putting out a corrupt self-elected elite, so that argument has less force than it used to. In any event, we don't want to wait too long for manners to return before it becomes necessary to force the issue and decide permanently to do without some people. (Basically the same Obama did, and signaled he was doing with, "I won.")

Andre Jute
My mind is in gear. Is yours?

[jbeattie]

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:01:33 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:33:35 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:11:17 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:50:44 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:43:28 AM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Last night on the UC Berkeley Campus showed the true agenda of the left. Not for their own freedoms but to stifle others. That was what the 8 years of Obama was all about.
> > > > >
> > > > > It came out this morning that cops won't work in California. So all of the police in large cities are people who have been thrown off of other police forces or those who could not pass the psychological tests to become police elsewhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is why they have been ordered to do NOTHING. They simply cannot be trusted with a gun.
> > > >
> > > > Did you not know that the Berkeley riot was a false-flag operation by the Illuminati? Obama is not directly involved, but he is the leader of a cabal of reptilians from the dark side of Uranus, and the reptilians have been providing the Illuminati with intelligence and materiel. A third group, a loose association of disaffected clowns from the defunct Ringling Bros. Circus, have been practicing mind-control on local law enforcement, causing them to lay down their weapons. The entire operation was being run out of a pizza and ping-pong joint in downtown Poughkeepsie.
> > > >
> > > > -- Jay Beattie.
> > >
> > > Oh, Berkeley was a conspiracy all right, as so many of these riots are. David French, and attorney, lays out who is responsible at
> > > http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444544/berkeley-riots-milo-yiannopoulos-california-mayor-free-speech
> > > and it is well worth studying the photographs and the linked video.
> >
> > Like I said below, bomb-throwing is not protected speech and the "anarchist" (what we call them up here and how they self-identify) have been showing up at protests for years -- or decades or even centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
> >
> > However, I would take issue with the suggestion in the article that all speech is protected by the First Amendment. It isn't, and the First Amendment does not protect any speech from non-governmental regulation. Your girl friend or next door neighbor can tell you to STF up. People can gather outside your home and protest your books -- assuming they don't violate any laws. They can burn copies of "It's the Economy, Stupid." Maybe they don't like being called "stupid"! Down with Andre Jute! He thinks transgender, differently-abled, sisters of color are dumb!
>
> "It's the Economy, Stupid" is a direct quote from Bill Clinton. I don't think "transgender, differently-abled, sisters of color are dumb", as you claim; I just don't think of them at all.
>
> > Anyway, there is nothing prohibiting individuals from shouting-down other individuals -- except the tort (defamation/anti-SLAPP) and criminal laws.
>
> Really? That's a lawyer speaking. There are endless other tools one can use, from subliminal suggestion through publicity to financial pressure to cheekbone highlights with a couple of bricks.
>
> >Does the Berkeley protest (even apart from the violent faction) signal the death of healthy on-campus debate? Yes. Are manners dead? Yes. IMO, the only thing we can do is wait for students to become exhausted.
>
> That's a loser's counsel. (Or the father of a student...) I think the Feds should identify the ring leaders and charge them. Why should they be allowed to get away with assaulting bystanders just because they're students? What sort of example does that set?

Absolutely, prosecute criminals. I don't think any federal crime has been committed, so the enforcement would be by local police.

However, nothing in the Constitution or the criminal laws prevents one person from shouting down another. Students can shout down Breitbart editors, so long as they don't break any laws. You can shout me down. I can shout you down. Let's shout!

-- Jay Beattie.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Shout ? WE GONNA THROW ROCKS AT YOUR BMW YOU FASCIST ASSHOLE

[Andre Jute]

Hell, yes, they're committing federal crimes, of a nature for which Obama in fact ordered American citizens assassinated, plotting to overthrow the elected government of the United States. It's just a matter of the will to frame the charges right.

While the Feds deal with the ringleaders, the local cops cam arrest the maximum number of lesser thugs and accomplices and book them. As soon as parents discover they're paying $45K and up per annum for their child to acquire an arrest record that potential employers can check, the riots will be over.

> However, nothing in the Constitution or the criminal laws prevents one person from shouting down another.

You should try explaining to a Muslim before witnesses that his religion is an ideology of conquest, conversion and cultural subjugation. s

>Students can shout down Breitbart editors, so long as they don't break any laws. You can shout me down. I can shout you down. Let's shout!

Oh, leave I shouting to inferior people. Shouting and violence is an admission that you lack confidence in framing a convincing case or that you realize you have no case.

The so-called liberals are throwing a childish tantrum at the election of Mr Trump because they know they haven't a case against him.

Andre Jute
Normative cases are great if you have generation to work in, tantrums will get you nothing if the next election is two years away.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:41:23 AM UTC, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
> Shout ? WE GONNA THROW ROCKS AT YOUR BMW YOU FASCIST ASSHOLE

Jay drives a Subaru, and he's a nice guy. You have the wrong fascist asshole, Daniels.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Case! we are in deep shit here Jute.

Off with your head !

[Andre Jute]

Here's a distinguished prosecutor agreeing with me that those thugs in Berkeley should be charged with sedition as well as common crimes of assault: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444596/berkeley-riots-sedition-laws

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 8:34:26 AM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> Here's a distinguished prosecutor agreeing with me that those thugs in Berkeley should be charged with sedition as well as common crimes of assault: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444596/berkeley-riots-sedition-laws

WHERE DOES HE LIVE ?

[AMuzi]

On 2/3/2017 10:41 PM, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
> Shout ? WE GONNA THROW ROCKS AT YOUR BMW YOU FASCIST ASSHOLE
>

I gave away my BMW in 1995.

[Andre Jute]

Don't be stupid Daniels. If you're actually on a list somewhere, and not just a wannabe conspiracy kook, it's this sort of crap that will add black marks on your shitlist until someone decides you've been weighed in the scales and it is time to order....






.....that you be subjected to a continuous IRS audit.

(sgnd) Anonymous

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:34:26 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> Here's a distinguished prosecutor agreeing with me that those thugs in Berkeley should be charged with sedition as well as common crimes of assault: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444596/berkeley-riots-sedition-laws

Gawd, is that overwrought:

"Whether it is Berkeley or Benghazi, it is standard operating procedure among the most influential, most allegedly mainstream Democratic politicians to rationalize rioting as mere “protest.” In their alternative reality, violence in the name of sedition is “free speech” — a passionate expression of political dissent — while the actual political speech they so savagely suppress is the atrocity."

Here is your laundry list of possible federal crimes relating to sedition or treason, none of which fit the Berkeley protest -- which was protesting the views of an individual speaker. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

And here is a more sober account from a student journalist. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?_r=0

Interestingly, no one talked sedition or treason when the lunatics took over the bird sanctuary. Then it was just liberty and freedom. Obama is satan! Government is bad, etc., etc. Pendulum swings, and here we are. What we also seem to forget is that many of the right wing lunatics operate alone or in small groups and are far more lethal -- e.g. killing of doctors who perform abortions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence Mass killings of federal workers: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html Mass killings of blacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof I'm sure there are more examples -- even the Mosque killing in Canada recently.

The generally sheepish lefties pale in comparison.

I'm tired of the protesting; I don't condone personal or property violence, and I think most of the protesters just need to grow up and get over it. But most of the lefties are harmless and claim to be pacifists. They are more of an annoyance than a threat. The provocateurs at Berkeley are a different group and should be prosecuted. Milo Yiannopoulos is a provocateur as well -- and I'm tired of click-bait provocateurs. You want a legitimate discourse, well then let's have one.

I do like David Brooks. I'd vote for him. And while were at it, people should be reading the executive orders. Skip the press, go to the orders. Most are pure showmanship, sound and fury signifying nothing: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/03/presidential-executive-order-core-principles-regulating-united-states I don't trust ANY of the internet news outlets to characterize the orders. And where are the critics of executive orders? They were everywhere during the Obama administration. I can't wait until we get Trump signing statements: "this law is great . . . not pathetic like Obama's laws. Let me tell you how great this is, even though it was co-sponsored by Little Marco and Lying Ted."

-- Jay Beattie.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 2/4/17 4:43 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> However, nothing in the Constitution or the criminal laws prevents one person from shouting down another. Students can shout down Breitbart editors, so long as they don't break any laws. You can shout me down. I can shout you down. Let's shout!

Students can and did shout down the president of Iran, who should never
have been allowed into the country per 8 USC 1182(a)(2)(G).

At least, that's how I interpret "Any alien who, while serving as a
foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried
out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom,
as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible."

--
Wes Groleau

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

more's the pity

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

oh Jute, what orbit spin thou ?

tho cannost see or here the latest from

KTLA

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

YOU WANT LEGITMATE DISCOURSE ? the recent Portland riots are therein legitimate discourse

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

YOU WANT LEGITMATE DISCOURSE ? the recent Portland riots are therein legitimate discourse

THEY have no memory for the savings n loan crisis or incroyable the Great Recession or 9-11. THEY are not lawyers.

take the Pinochet mechanics next door. Mechanic ? more or less intelligent but not with IDEAS and IDEA ANALYSIS.

doesn't happen.

no other way explaining why the pig farmers would vote the bad guys in again.

so what we have here is misrepresentation and a well earned Boston Harbor Tea Party where we can throw Bannon n Conway over the side.

non violent commentary follows

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/40/167640-004-90B75054.jpg

[jbeattie]

The students were shouting in 1979 (and before). That section was passed in 1998 as part of a large-scale religious freedom act signed by that liar and sex-abuser, Bill Clinton, whose wife is Satan . . . oh wait, that black dude is Satan. So many Satans! I can't keep them straight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Religious_Freedom_Act_of_1998
See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ292/html/PLAW-105publ292.htm

I remember the Iranian students protesting at SJSU. "Down with the Shaw . . . " over and over again. A group of frat boys -- a small group, because SJSU didn't have much in the way of frats -- were marching behind them yelling "cheese burgers, cheese burgers." I guess it was the Alpha Psi Dada fraternity.

-- Jay Beattie.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

In 1052 President Harry Truman signed into law the the McCarran-Walter Act. This was used to stop ALL immigration into this country for over 10 years. In the Presidency of Jimmy Carter this law was again used to evict 15,000 Iranians from the USA.

Now we have Trump exercising this EXACT same law to a FAR less extent and a Federal Judge attempting to take this government into his own hands. This man should be stricken from the bench and criminal charges placed against him.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

It is questionable if the rioters were part of the student body since they all wore masks and were armed with rocks, bottles, flare guns, firework rockets etc. But almost the entire student body was there to INTERFERE with any possible police action against the destructive behavior of some of the rioters.

After the police started to move in to protect the administration building from further fires and rocks they all moved out en masse down the local main streets breaking out the windows of small business holders who have not recovered from previous "protests" and the Obama "recession". Merchandise was stolen and as much damage as possible was done including setting businesses on fire.

Yeah, liberals can really hold their heads high in their anti-free speech movement.

There's no solitary confinement hole deep enough in the darkest prison for any of those involved in this and this is MOST of the Cal student body. While they were saying that wasn't Cal students the TV reporters were INTERVIEWING them.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Well your hero Bill Clinton has advanced melanoma and you won't have your hero around for much longer. Tell me - without his political pull what do you suppose is going to happen to Hillary? How do you suppose she had all those EXTREMELY nasty things to say about Obama (she was the originator of the "birther" question) and yet was chosen as Secretary of State - the second most powerful position in this country?

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

not fast enough ...


Meanwhile any Iranians entering the US were forced to undergo castration.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

what happens is the US is sending back 3000 spies, 5000 US educated Persians, and assorted pathological types no one wants like Muriel.

Or you:

[jbeattie]

Gawd, how many times has that "Hillary started the birther question" been debunked? Like a zillion? I think it's believed at only a small number of pizza and ping-pong joints.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

Wow.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/4/2017 2:50 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> nstitution or the criminal laws prevents one person from shouting down another. Students can shout down Breitbart editors, so long as they don't break any laws. You can shout me down. I can shout you down. Let's shout!
>
> In 1052 President Harry Truman signed into law the the McCarran-Walter Act. This was used to stop ALL immigration into this country for over 10 years. In the Presidency of Jimmy Carter this law was again used to evict 15,000 Iranians from the USA.
>
> Now we have Trump exercising this EXACT same law to a FAR less extent and a Federal Judge attempting to take this government into his own hands. This man should be stricken from the bench and criminal charges placed against him.

FWIW: Last night I had a long conversation with a woman who works for an
agency that supports immigrants and refugees. She teaches them English,
as well as helping them make sense of American society. Her students
include everyone from a few college-educated men to the poorest of the
poor, with most from the lower end of the prosperity scale.

As you might expect, all those people (including the woman I talked
with) are highly stressed now. One specific problem is that her clients
from places like Somalia, Sudan etc. have never had much contact with
electronic media. They are terribly susceptible to "fake news." And
there are absolutely evil people who are deliberately delivering the
worst possible fake news and the most brutal harassment - saying that
all Muslims, all immigrants, all asylum seekers are going to be jailed
and/or deported, no matter what their legal status, saying that they
should be attacked wherever they are. Since the woman's clients have
very, very limited English language skills, she's having a very hard
time reassuring them. Not that it would be easy if they spoke perfect
English.

She described women (with children) who escaped Sudan, barely making it
out alive. She talked about one of those women breaking down in class,
because she heard she would soon be sent back, which would be a death
sentence for her and her kids.

She talked of two Iranian clients who were here specifically because
they worked for the U.S. forces in Iraq and were thus marked men where
they came from, unlikely to survive for long. Yet some want to send
them back. You know, "Thanks for your service when we invaded your
country. Now die."

She described one person holding up a smart phone with some Facebook
nonsense talking about killing all Muslims. The person said "Everybody
in America hates us."

How do you explain to a Sudanese widow that people like her are being
excluded because a bunch of Saudis flew planes into two skyscrapers?
And how do you explain that despite that, Saudis are still allowed to
travel back and forth?

How do you explain that this is not what most Americans want - and how
do you justify that so many actually Americans do want it?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Are you crazy (again, a rhetorical question). The McCarran-Walter Act was VETOED BY PRESIDENT TRUMAN. I REPEAT: VETOED. His veto was overridden. It did not stop all immigration into this country.

Your facts are entirely wrong about Carter who sought to deport Iranian students illegally in the country -- which did not result in the "eviction" of 15,000 Iranians. Then the Iranians over-took the US embassy and all entry visas were cancelled (subject to humanitarian exceptions), and other sanctions were imposed on Iran. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233

Do you know the Washington WD USDC judge who stayed Trump's immigration order? Did you read the motions or hear argument? Do you know f****** anything about why the judge ruled the way he did? It was a TRO hearing. Have you ever done a TRO hearing; do you know the burden of proof or even how long a TRO lasts? Read and learn: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/02/03/state.of.washington.v.trump.pdf

Unplug Breitbart for a day and actually go out and read all the material you cite. It's obvious to me you don't do any primary research. It's just whack-o right-wing echo chamber.

-- Jay Beattie.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 2/4/17 7:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> The students were shouting in 1979 (and before). That section was passed in 1998 as part of a large-scale religious freedom act signed by that liar and sex-abuser, Bill Clinton, whose wife is Satan . . . oh wait, that black dude is Satan. So many Satans! I can't keep them straight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Religious_Freedom_Act_of_1998
> See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ292/html/PLAW-105publ292.htm

Wasn't it 2007 that Ahmeddinajad went to Columbia Univ.?

--
Wes Groleau

[AMuzi]

I don't know.

You'd have to ask BHO who devised that list. Or any of the
last several Presidents who had various stops/ holds/ bans/
limitations from time to time. Or maybe go back and ask
those students why their countries have a longstanding ban
on Jews, period. Or maybe you could actually read the actual
order which does not include the worlds 'islam' or 'moslem'
at all. Or suggest that they read the damned thing before
going all emotive trump at you. It may well be that they
have access to a television so their input is garbage and
the output matches.

[jbeattie]

It's easy -- the President can allow or exclude whoever the f*** he wants. 8 USC Section 1182(f):

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

This is how it will play out: https://aclum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/69-Order-Denying-extension-of-TRO.pdf

So, you tell the Sudanese widow "f*** you, have a nice day." Look her in the eye long and hard when you do it. That's now the Amer-y-cun way. Are you not a patriot?

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:11:21 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:34:26 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > Here's a distinguished prosecutor agreeing with me that those thugs in Berkeley should be charged with sedition as well as common crimes of assault: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444596/berkeley-riots-sedition-laws
>
> Gawd, is that overwrought:

Really? I'm an outsider, no Trump fan (I'm on record from before the election writing several times that it was an insult to the voters for the Democratic and Republican Parties to force a choice between the crook Clinton and the reality TV show host Trump on the electorate), and I live almost on the other side of the world, but to me a distinguished prosecutor of terrorists doesn't seem in the least overwrought when he lists the laws under which this violent scum in Berkeley can be prosecuted for maximum deterrent value.

> "Whether it is Berkeley or Benghazi, it is standard operating procedure among the most influential, most allegedly mainstream Democratic politicians to rationalize rioting as mere “protest.” In their alternative reality, violence in the name of sedition is “free speech” — a passionate expression of political dissent — while the actual political speech they so savagely suppress is the atrocity."

That scum in Berkeley claimed they were exercising their right to anti-Fascist free speech while they smashed property and people in the process of denying Milo Yiannopoulos the right to speak. The irony must have escaped them: Milo is a homosexual Jew.

> Here is your laundry list of possible federal crimes relating to sedition or treason, none of which fit the Berkeley protest -- which was protesting the views of an individual speaker. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

You'll forgive me, Jay, if I prefer to take my list of treasonous and seditious crimes from a terrorist expert who gained convictions of terrorists rather than from a Portland insurance attorney.

> And here is a more sober account from a student journalist. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?_r=0

Oh, for chrisesake, are you really suggesting I read that discredited rag? We don't care that in the eyes of a few ineffectual students the violence undermined the protest, what we're discussing is that the violence was committed by hundred and approved of by thousands of students, who also shielded the perpetrators against the police, so that only one (one!) arrest was made.

> Interestingly, no one talked sedition or treason when the lunatics took over the bird sanctuary. Then it was just liberty and freedom. Obama is satan! Government is bad, etc., etc. Pendulum swings, and here we are. What we also seem to forget is that many of the right wing lunatics operate alone or in small groups and are far more lethal -- e.g. killing of doctors who perform abortions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence Mass killings of federal workers: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html Mass killings of blacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof I'm sure there are more examples -- even the Mosque killing in Canada recently.

Save equivalence arguments for weak-minded clowns like Krygowski and Slow Johnny. They cut no ice with me or anyone else with his mind in gear.

> The generally sheepish lefties pale in comparison.

Yah, by comparison the Mormons rioted so hard when good old Mitt dinna get to be president, why there was a car that almost qualified as double-parked in front of the Tabernacle on Sunday morning, and a Mormon missionary was seen in public dfwith his tie pulled down half an inch. Pull the other leg, pal. Those are your "sheepish lefties" in the Berkeley videos, beating a man on the ground whom they suspect of being a Trump voter.

> I'm tired of the protesting; I don't condone personal or property violence, and I think most of the protesters just need to grow up and get over it. But most of the lefties are harmless and claim to be pacifists. They are more of an annoyance than a threat. The provocateurs at Berkeley are a different group and should be prosecuted.

You're so laid-back, Jay, you're fast asleep on the job. Is that what you tell your son, that it's okay to smash other people's property, bodies and lives while "you just need to grow up and get over it"?

>Milo Yiannopoulos is a provocateur as well -- and I'm tired of click-bait provocateurs.

We see. So you, a member of the Bar, think violence to shut Milo up is permissible because he doesn't happen to agree with your politics?

>You want a legitimate discourse, well then let's have one.

I don't see the point of a discourse. Trump isn't a conservative; his policies are the same as Bill Clinton's were, and in line with Bush 2's policies too; it was Obama was the outlier. I said what I had to say about the serial woman-abuser Clinton's policies at the time and in a book on economics since, and history has also already passed judgement. What we're talking about now is scum trying to reverse a fully Constitutional election. When you're not trying to make excuses for violent trash, you're trying to avoid talking about their destructive activities.

[snip]

> -- Jay Beattie.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigor -- Gaius Germanicus Ceasar

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 9:49:39 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> FWIW: Last night I had a long conversation with a woman who works for an

Since you ask what it is worth, Franki-boy, taxi-driver testimony isn't worth shit. It isn't even a platitude.

Andre Jute
I do this for a living

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 3:25:50 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:11:21 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:34:26 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > Here's a distinguished prosecutor agreeing with me that those thugs in Berkeley should be charged with sedition as well as common crimes of assault: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444596/berkeley-riots-sedition-laws
> >
> > Gawd, is that overwrought:
>
> Really? I'm an outsider, no Trump fan (I'm on record from before the election writing several times that it was an insult to the voters for the Democratic and Republican Parties to force a choice between the crook Clinton and the reality TV show host Trump on the electorate), and I live almost on the other side of the world, but to me a distinguished prosecutor of terrorists doesn't seem in the least overwrought when he lists the laws under which this violent scum in Berkeley can be prosecuted for maximum deterrent value.
>
> > "Whether it is Berkeley or Benghazi, it is standard operating procedure among the most influential, most allegedly mainstream Democratic politicians to rationalize rioting as mere “protest.” In their alternative reality, violence in the name of sedition is “free speech” — a passionate expression of political dissent — while the actual political speech they so savagely suppress is the atrocity."
>
> That scum in Berkeley claimed they were exercising their right to anti-Fascist free speech while they smashed property and people in the process of denying Milo Yiannopoulos the right to speak. The irony must have escaped them: Milo is a homosexual Jew.

To repeat: a small number of individuals engaged in violence. "While the rest of the world may see student protesters as the ones behind the violence, campus officials on Thursday said non-students had hijacked what otherwise would have been a peaceful protest. And they referred pointedly to the fact that the Berkeley campus has been and will remain a bastion of protected speech, no matter what part of the ideological landscape its practitioners may inhabit." http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/02/uc-berkeley-riot-raise-questions-about-free-speech/

I saw the same sort of behavior for several days in Portland. http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/01/20/thousands-of-portlanders-jam-downtown-streets-with-signs-and-puppets-to-protest-president-donald-trump/ The organizer, or one of the organizers, is the son of one of my partners. Those peaceful marches were later hijacked by "anarchists" -- or whatever the thugs chose to call themselves on a given day. It happens, and it's unfortunate, and we're prosecuting them. http://katu.com/news/local/police-arrest-vandalism-suspect-in-portland-riot

At no point did I support anyone who injures person or property to make a point. You're tilting at straw men.

-- Jay Beattie.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

GROLEAU GETS A FREE PIZZA for this weeks Lieb

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:
> ... two Iranian clients who were here specifically because

>they worked for the U.S. forces in Iraq and were thus marked men where
>they came from, unlikely to survive for long. Yet some want to send
>them back.

That's about as cold as it gets - really exposes the nut-job-pandering
people in politics for what they really are.
--
Pete Cresswell

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

the situation evolves into Time not recognized by Rump tho off course Rump embodies the Time change.

reading this USC one hears the past.

Rump is involved in promoting the past to capture the future. GOP has assembled a small army of retro thinkers. Bannon, who say wrote the roughly done odor ...in terms of Time... is this. Your new SC Justice we now read formed a Fascist Club in HS. I know who, right ?

The problem is Time does not find this retro think applicable to real Time globalization. Like Dude these guys are just not connected to reality in promoting retro in global. No smarts.

This is Sam Morse and TR..

its 1914 all over again.

DOA

[AMuzi]

Seems to be sadly de rigueur as when BHO bragged about the
Paki doctor who fingered OBL - a doctor who will not survive
the prison sentence he's serving.

That doesn't make either man better or worse than the other
but sheesh you'd think they would have just a little common
sense.

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 07:33:33 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:
>
> You never know. Manners may return one day along with LPs and Trilby
> hats. What this election has taught me is that both society and
> government depend in large part on unwritten rules -- manners, social
> convention, shared values. When either side forgets those things, then
> the whole system starts falling apart.

LPs are back, so maybe that's a good harbinger. I'd like to highlight
the shared values aspect of what you said. Over the past two decades,
in the media and especially here on Usenet, I have been told over and
over by numerous conservatives that because I am a liberal I have no
shared values with them. Bullshit. But they believe it, apparently,
and react based on those beliefs; hopefully the values liberals and
conservatives share will eventually become evident. Then we can move
forward on the things we agree on and wok out compromises on the things
we don't. As long as "no compromise" is the mantra, though, progress is
more or less doomed.

[Tim McNamara]

Whew! At least that won't prevent The Donald from entering the US over
his violations of religious freedom- he's not an "alien" (although see
Bloom County's current strips for the alternative facts).

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:46:47 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 3:25:50 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:11:21 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:34:26 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > Here's a distinguished prosecutor agreeing with me that those thugs in Berkeley should be charged with sedition as well as common crimes of assault: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444596/berkeley-riots-sedition-laws
> > >
> > > Gawd, is that overwrought:
> >
> > Really? I'm an outsider, no Trump fan (I'm on record from before the election writing several times that it was an insult to the voters for the Democratic and Republican Parties to force a choice between the crook Clinton and the reality TV show host Trump on the electorate), and I live almost on the other side of the world, but to me a distinguished prosecutor of terrorists doesn't seem in the least overwrought when he lists the laws under which this violent scum in Berkeley can be prosecuted for maximum deterrent value.
> >
> > > "Whether it is Berkeley or Benghazi, it is standard operating procedure among the most influential, most allegedly mainstream Democratic politicians to rationalize rioting as mere “protest.” In their alternative reality, violence in the name of sedition is “free speech” — a passionate expression of political dissent — while the actual political speech they so savagely suppress is the atrocity."
> >
> > That scum in Berkeley claimed they were exercising their right to anti-Fascist free speech while they smashed property and people in the process of denying Milo Yiannopoulos the right to speak. The irony must have escaped them: Milo is a homosexual Jew.
>
> To repeat: a small number of individuals engaged in violence.

Crap. The videos clearly show the thugs melting back into the crowd of students and the students closing up around them, deliberately getting in the way of police, preventing them from arresting the thugs. They're accomplices and should be arrested and charged too.

>"While the rest of the world may see student protesters as the ones behind the violence, campus officials on Thursday said non-students had hijacked what otherwise would have been a peaceful protest."

Of course the college administration will say that after Mr Trump threatened to cut their funding. Only the naive will believe them, even without the evidence of the videos. It's offensive for you to blow such poor-grade smoke, Jay.

>"And they referred pointedly to the fact that the Berkeley campus has been and will remain a bastion of protected speech, no matter what part of the ideological landscape its practitioners may inhabit." http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/02/uc-berkeley-riot-raise-questions-about-free-speech/

Amazing. So what did Milo say in his "protected speech, no matter what part of the ideological landscape he may inhabit"? Oh, dear, I forgot. The rioters were successful: Milo didn't get to speak. So it is just more meaningless verbiage for naifs to pass around.

> I saw the same sort of behavior for several days in Portland. http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/01/20/thousands-of-portlanders-jam-downtown-streets-with-signs-and-puppets-to-protest-president-donald-trump/ The organizer, or one of the organizers, is the son of one of my partners. Those peaceful marches were later hijacked by "anarchists" -- or whatever the thugs chose to call themselves on a given day. It happens, and it's unfortunate, and we're prosecuting them. http://katu.com/news/local/police-arrest-vandalism-suspect-in-portland-riot
>
> At no point did I support anyone who injures person or property to make a point. You're tilting at straw men.

You're an enabler, making excuses for violent thugs. I can't be bothered to look up all your exculpatory little phrases again. Here's one from the second par above: "It happens, and it's unfortunate..." It "happens" that bystanders land up in hospital beaten nearly to death, amid millions in property damage and small concerns driven out of business, and it's "unfortunate", eh?

> -- Jay Beattie.

This sort of callousness is sickening, even from an attorney.

Repeating "peaceful protest" like a mantra while the neighborhood burns and ambulances race random victims of the mob to intensive care will make these fascist mobs neither peaceful nor acceptable.

I repeat, since the local police is clearly politicized and ineffective, Washington should send a hungry US Attorney with instructions to frame charges that can draw in the FBI to investigate, all the way up to sedition. It's time to make an example of a few thousand fascists.

Andre Jute
A right smart lesson

[John B.]

Re the Sudan: It might be pointed out that the British ruled the Sudan
from 1896 until 1955 and the country was relatively peaceful. The
first parliament was inaugurated in 1954 and the people in the U.S.
clapped their hands with joy that another country had gained their
freedom from foreign domination.

The Sudanese army revolted the first time in August 1955 and the
country has been in turmoil ever since. In 2011, after yet another
revolt, South Sudan broke away from the North and became an
independent country.

But now that they have their freedom, and they are killing each other.
Amazing!

But why America? Why aren't they fleeing to Egypt or Saudi Arabia both
Muslim countries as is the Sudan, or any of the adjacent African
countries?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 14:11:20 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

Good Lord! Are you some sort of revolutionary? Read and Understand?
That is almost Un-American isn't it. Why, all one needs to do is log
onto the blog of their choice and they will be told the TRUTH!

(Winston Churchill once said that the greatest argument against
democracy was a five minute conversation with the average voter)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-protests-grab-your-wallet-20170204-story.html


RIDE FOR RUMP

free day glo T

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

AJ, the tenor of this is endemic....



http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/03/513305178/that-valuable-intel-from-the-yemen-raid-it-was-10-years-old

[AMuzi]

Our founder, a linguist specializing in Slavic languages,
often said the Eastern Europeans want to be free, free to
kill their neighbors and when the Russians leave they will.
25 years later I finally understood the depth of that truth
and The Sudan is no different.

[AMuzi]

Inadvertently a good point. Vinyl LPs show spectacular
patterns when seen in a different light (UV):

https://s3.amazonaws.com/img.deadformat.net/tradelist/l/5238b680123da.jpg

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 2/4/17 11:42 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> It's easy -- the President can allow or exclude whoever the f*** he wants. 8 USC Section 1182(f):
>
> (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
> Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend

A "layman" asking a lawyer: Is there a contradiction between that
and 8 USC 1152(a)(1)(A), "Except as specifically provided in ****, no
person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated
against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s
race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

?

Or does one override the other?

**** I looked them up; they offer preference for specific circumstances.

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

I met an Iranian fellow in Turkey. He was hoping to go to Italy, since
the Turks "look the other way" when Iranian agents execute Iranians in
Turkey. Give the Turks a little credit though, that they don't send the
people back.

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 2/5/17 3:49 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> and react based on those beliefs; hopefully the values liberals and
> conservatives share will eventually become evident. Then we can move

Not until both stop using the labels as epithets to denote an entirely
different species from themselves.

--
Wes Groleau

[Andre Jute]

Here's the article with the photograph of how dangerous it is to be a bystander in riots like Berkeley, and some good considerations from David French, an attorney of violence who used to be a soldier.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444544/berkeley-riots-milo-yiannopoulos-california-mayor-free-speech

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

comparing Sudan to Eastern Yurp ?

better Sudan to Russia


Eastern Yurp to Tennessee

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 8:03:37 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:46:47 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 3:25:50 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 4:11:21 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:34:26 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > > Here's a distinguished prosecutor agreeing with me that those thugs in Berkeley should be charged with sedition as well as common crimes of assault: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444596/berkeley-riots-sedition-laws
> > > >
> > > > Gawd, is that overwrought:
> > >
> > > Really? I'm an outsider, no Trump fan (I'm on record from before the election writing several times that it was an insult to the voters for the Democratic and Republican Parties to force a choice between the crook Clinton and the reality TV show host Trump on the electorate), and I live almost on the other side of the world, but to me a distinguished prosecutor of terrorists doesn't seem in the least overwrought when he lists the laws under which this violent scum in Berkeley can be prosecuted for maximum deterrent value.
> > >
> > > > "Whether it is Berkeley or Benghazi, it is standard operating procedure among the most influential, most allegedly mainstream Democratic politicians to rationalize rioting as mere “protest.” In their alternative reality, violence in the name of sedition is “free speech” — a passionate expression of political dissent — while the actual political speech they so savagely suppress is the atrocity."
> > >
> > > That scum in Berkeley claimed they were exercising their right to anti-Fascist free speech while they smashed property and people in the process of denying Milo Yiannopoulos the right to speak. The irony must have escaped them: Milo is a homosexual Jew.
> >
> > To repeat: a small number of individuals engaged in violence.
>
> Crap. The videos clearly show the thugs melting back into the crowd of students and the students closing up around them, deliberately getting in the way of police, preventing them from arresting the thugs. They're accomplices and should be arrested and charged too.
>
> >"While the rest of the world may see student protesters as the ones behind the violence, campus officials on Thursday said non-students had hijacked what otherwise would have been a peaceful protest."
>
> Of course the college administration will say that after Mr Trump threatened to cut their funding. Only the naive will believe them, even without the evidence of the videos. It's offensive for you to blow such poor-grade smoke, Jay.
>
> >"And they referred pointedly to the fact that the Berkeley campus has been and will remain a bastion of protected speech, no matter what part of the ideological landscape its practitioners may inhabit." http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/02/uc-berkeley-riot-raise-questions-about-free-speech/
>
> Amazing. So what did Milo say in his "protected speech, no matter what part of the ideological landscape he may inhabit"? Oh, dear, I forgot. The rioters were successful: Milo didn't get to speak. So it is just more meaningless verbiage for naifs to pass around.
>
> > I saw the same sort of behavior for several days in Portland. http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/01/20/thousands-of-portlanders-jam-downtown-streets-with-signs-and-puppets-to-protest-president-donald-trump/ The organizer, or one of the organizers, is the son of one of my partners. Those peaceful marches were later hijacked by "anarchists" -- or whatever the thugs chose to call themselves on a given day. It happens, and it's unfortunate, and we're prosecuting them. http://katu.com/news/local/police-arrest-vandalism-suspect-in-portland-riot
> >
> > At no point did I support anyone who injures person or property to make a point. You're tilting at straw men.
>
> You're an enabler, making excuses for violent thugs. I can't be bothered to look up all your exculpatory little phrases again. Here's one from the second par above: "It happens, and it's unfortunate..." It "happens" that bystanders land up in hospital beaten nearly to death, amid millions in property damage and small concerns driven out of business, and it's "unfortunate", eh?

You're making fake news.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

Sorry, it makes no sense to imply that "several Presidents" or other
countries bans, etc. justify this stupidity. I don't agree with Andrew
Jackson's ban on Cherokee landholding. I don't agree with the treatment
of Chinese in the American west of the 1800s. I also don't agree with
the treatment of Jews by certain countries - not just Muslim ones.

Those injustices existed or still exist. But if the existence of one
injustice is justification for the imposition of others, we're in a
sorry state.

In fact, thoughts like that seem to be antithetical to central concepts
of Christianity and several other religions. And as many have pointed
out, this nonsense doesn't even make tactical sense. It's rich
propaganda fodder for those who would recruit terrorists. It's
absolute, total stupidity.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I think the word "they" is overused in this context. It would be more
accurate to say _some_ of them want to kill _some_ of their neighbors.
IOW, don't use too broad a brush.

Yes, we're still tribal at our roots. But things have been getting
better, usually due to increasing economic and social relationships.
Most cultures in America and Western Europe mix, mingle and blend quite
peacefully. The more connections, the less violence.

For every hothead, there are probably 100 sensible people. The trick is
to avoid giving the hotheads power.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

My facts are good, backed by photographic evidence. Here's some more:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444544/berkeley-riots-milo-yiannopoulos-california-mayor-free-speech
Your arguments aim to exonerate the culprits. It seems we attach different values to people being assaulted, property destroyed, universities intimidated, and speakers railroaded out of town, fascist behavior by any standard.

Andre Jute
Grown up

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/4/2017 5:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:50:23 AM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>

>> In 1052 President Harry Truman signed into law the the McCarran-Walter Act. ...

>>
>
> Are you crazy (again, a rhetorical question). The McCarran-Walter Act was VETOED BY PRESIDENT TRUMAN. I REPEAT: VETOED. His veto was overridden. It did not stop all immigration into this country.

I've reached the point where, until further information comes from an
outside source, I assume whatever Tom writes points 180 degrees away
from the truth.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

I agree with you, Franki-boy, equivalence is no excuse. But there's a substantial difference between equivalence (what other countries did, perhaps wrongfully) and precedent, which is what previous American presidents did. Mr Trump was simply following a precedent set by both Presidents Obama and Bush in this century, and by most presidents in the previous century.

We didn't hear you complaining when Obama did the same thing last year. Can you explain that to us, Franki-boy.

Andre Jute
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

[Frank Krygowski]

Vaguely relevant: When I taught a course in industrial robotics, I
often gave a writing assignment regarding the effects of automation on
labor, employment, etc. The students' views spanned a wide range, and
the pre- and post-assignment discussion was always interesting.

At one point one year, in the post-assignment discussion, I mentioned
the fact that when most people have decent jobs that it's better for
society - that there's less crime, we can afford better infrastructure, etc.

One student said in astonishment "What??? You're a damned LIBERAL!" And
I'm pretty sure his mind switched off at that moment.

(BTW, I'll remind folks that at other times, by other people, I've been
called a damned conservative.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/5/2017 10:58 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> You're making fake news.
>

Do people actually read Jute? Really?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

If asked what my political outlook is, I used to describe myself as a Liberal and a conservationist. But I find American liberals of the limp weenie persuasion too embarrassing, especially the America-haters. Also, they're incompetent. I really don't want to be associated with a bunch of free speech bashers and other losers who are too useless even to organize a proper bovver.

But, if I'm in a bind, at least I've spent half my life in mixed-economy semi-socialist states, so I'm familiar with the possibilities of slightly left of centre pols like Trump. Imagine the consternation of a real guntoting conservative at Mr Trump, a Republican president who isn't even a conservative at all but a Clinton-era swinger, complete with a policy book that could have been written in Bill Clinton's White House, even if Mr Trump's personal behavior is a vast, vast, vast improvement on Clinton's and he already looks like a hugely better manager of the Executive once you overlook a few slipsteps that we can write off to the learning curve.

What you're hearing from the group's resident idiot, Timmie McNamara. is simply ponderous hot air. We know from McNamara's sneers at Trump side by side with his foolish homilies about bipartisanship that the dumb cluck hasn't even recognized that Trump is a slightly old-fashioned Democrat in drag.

Andre Jute
Mature revolutionary

[jbeattie]

The short answer would be that the president has plenary power to determine who comes into the US; 1152(a)(1)(A) directs how visas are to be distributed among those who are eligible to come into the US, and the section doesn't apply to those who the president has said can't come in. It doesn't limit presidential power in my opinion. That section has been around since 1965 and didn't keep Reagan from excluding Haitians or Carter from excluding Iranians.

That's just my conclusion based on statutory interpretation. The analysis is probably different under the Constitution -- at least for those who are in the US. Once you're in the US, you get the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment -- due process and equal protection. So, you would get some process, and even apart from 1152(a)(1)(A)(assuming it applies), the government could not discriminate against you because you are from a particular nation -- or black, or queer or a woman or all of those things.

Except it can -- at least when it comes to the exercise of executive power in the area of immigration. Broad deference is given to the executive, and courts will not interfere with executive action where there is a "legitimate basis" for concluding that the executive was acting to protect an "overriding national interest." Mow Sun Wong v. Campbell, 626 F.2d 739, 744 (9th Cir. 1980)("When the Federal Government asserts an overriding national interest as justification for a discriminatory rule which would violate the Equal Protection Clause if adopted by a State, due process requires that there be a legitimate basis for presuming that the rule was actually intended to serve that interest.") Basically any justification will do as a practical matter.

Along with "standing" rules and a half-dozen other doctrines, the outcome is that Trump can do basically whatever he wants to do. He is different from other presidents only in that he's like some weird over-blown Dr. Seuss character who does everything with a flourish and a barb. He is on the record about wanting to keep Muslims out, so notwithstanding the designation of certain nations in the EO, we know what he's up to. He's pandering. Extreme vetting already exists for all these nations. But, people fall for it. It looks like he's keeping America safe. He gets the news coverage he needs more than an addict needs heroin. Yahoo news gets to wail. Breitbart gets to crow. Rinse, lather repeat.

-- Jay Beattie.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Andre Jute:

>Here's the article with the photograph of how dangerous it is to be a bystander in riots like Berkeley,
>and some good considerations from David French, an attorney of violence who used to be a soldier.
>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444544/berkeley-riots-milo-yiannopoulos-california-mayor-free-speech

"Law enforcement should prioritize identifying, locating, and arresting
members of the black bloc, and it should treat them as the political
terrorists they are."

I have to agree 100%.

Having said that....

There's the idea of, for want of a better term, "Mission Creep" - where
the authorities label increasingly-harmless assemblies as "Riots".

A looooong time ago me and my college roommate drove down to Fort
Lauderdale, Florida for spring break.

That was the year that the film "Where The Boys Are" came out and the
place was even more packed with students on spring break than usual.

To make a long story short, the authorities responded to the "riots" by
beating up students right-and-left. I was there and, believe me,
there were no riots.... just a lot of college kids milling around in the
streets because the locals had chosen this year to close the beaches
after something like 5 PM....

We read newspaper accounts and watched TV coverage - and the further
away the coverage source was, the more lurid the stories.... But there
were no riots... just an excuse for a bunch of redneck deputies to beat
up on college kids.

Something to think about if/when people get too righteously-indignant
about "Riots".
--
Pete Cresswell

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Jay , HOLDERS OF 'physically cancelled' visa attached to valid passports are discriminated relative to the would be cancelled getting in thru the stay order.

a large number. These get either a hearing or a free pass.

as I read, letting the order go as is not possible as parts are unconstitutional, vague, ...

thus a badly written odor is unenforceable without rewriting.

the options then are:

cancel odor rewrite....can an odor be amended ? as on going...

yach ..... this is bush

[jbeattie]

IMO, he didn't even need a formal executive order -- at least not one in a fancy book, covered by the media and with an exchange of pens. See e.g. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233 (Carter announcing policy on Iranians)

And when I said Trump can basically do what he wants to do, I mean in terms of excluding people from entering the US. Section 1182(f) relates to the president's power to prevent the "entry" of immigrants and not the exclusion or deportation of immigrants once they are admitted to the US. Cancelling the visas of immigrants admitted in the US is another issue.

And yes, the courts have parsed Trump's EO to determine what he was trying to say. In Louhghalam v. Trump, the court determined that the order was not intended to exclude green card holders who were reentering the country, a position the administration conceded. The court also determined that the administration had made the required finding under Section 1182(f). It refused to grant a preliminary injunction.

I'm sure someone who does this kind of law can pick legal nits and may be able to make some headway. I wouldn't take the case. Like Andrew says, presidents have issued these kinds of orders in the past, albeit under different circumstances. One would have to prove that the circumstances of this order distinguish it from the other orders in a way the matters legally. It's my day off, and I have a cold. I leave that to others.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

Another reason I'm keen on getting the Feds involved, for intelligence gathering and a surgical strike, is that we don't want any police riots by half-trained cops in which a bunch of students get hurt. The idea here is name-taking and involving the parents and perhaps charges, and putting the scum in black away for a good long time, and putting the fear of God into the rest, not what Muzi calls baton shampoos.

Andre Jute
Concerned citizen

[Andre Jute]

It's a snakepit. No wonder so many presidents bypassed Congress to do it by executive order.

Andre Jute
Sometime I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

I leave that to others.

right, digging is deep

what I muse is the word 'physically' is this a legal term in relation to the laws supporting the issue or is 'physically' a pre decision weighted word attempting separation of the now with stay, physical entry into the US with a valid Visa recorded and existing in the US

apart from the semi 'victory of the odor excluding people with a physically cancelled otherwise valid visa/passport ....existing in the US as a record of attainment.

if nit there are several ways to argue.... if A is not then why is B ? both with valid visa

then T deports all A .that will cause a row

beyond constitutional to the logical .... if in ....if in absurdity

when This broke I went to see if I was deportable ....like why not ?

what I have right off is denial of disability in a National Forest I use for KSC analysis n experiment. 15 years plus with KSC support. The denial comes from DC after local objections from trumpites to the disability access. Denial
produces increased danger no less.

With support, I hear the disability access is not disability access or was not then or now undergoing a when is a duck a horse morphic change. who wrote that ? Frankfurter ?

while friends of the trumpites have access without disability ! when a horse is a duck.

additionally, Trumpites moved to trap n kill my genetically enhanced bird flock.

I'm handing out kites n donating. The Indians want a heater.

[Tim McNamara]

Yes, that's probably true. For me, neither liberal nor conservative is
much of an epithet since the majority of my family is Republican. I
understand why they think the way they do and think they're not wrong on
some of it (and disagree with some of it; and then again I don't agree
with all liberals either...).

[jbeattie]

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 7:24:16 AM UTC-8, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:

Wes -- extra credit for you and me. I pulled the TRO briefs filed in the USDC WD Washington case and extracted some of the arguments. The States cited and relied on 8 USC 1152(a)(1)(A), and the Trump administration responded with a long version of my short-hand conclusion (bad cut and paste from OCR PDF):

"More fundamentally, however, the State misreads 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) as
constraining the broad delegation of authority to the President in Section 212(f) of the Act. “[I]t is a well established axiom of statutory construction that, whenever possible, a court should interpret two seemingly inconsistent statutes to avoid a potential conflict.” California ex rel.
Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 2000).

Likewise, it is a “well established canon of statutory interpretation . . . that the specific governs the general.” RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065, 2070-71 (2012). In light of these principles, Section 212(f) is easily reconciled with § 1152(a)(1)(A): the latter sets forth the general default rule that applies in the absence of action by the President,
whereas Section 212(f) governs the specific instance in which the President proclaims that entry of a “class of aliens” would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Here, as the challenged Executive Order involves “detrimental” findings, Section 212(f) controls. That is
precisely why (as discussed above) prior Presidents have drawn nationality-based distinctions when exercising their authority under Section 212(f). And it is likewise why the 2015 Amendment to the INA, as implemented by the Executive Branch over the past year, has drawn the exact same nationality-based distinctions as the Executive Order. Indeed, under the State’s view, the United States could not suspend entry of nationals of a country with which the United States is at war. The INA plainly does not require that result.

The placement of the anti-discrimination rule within Section 1152 further indicates that the rule is not intended to curb the President’s authority under Section 212(f) to suspend or impose restrictions upon entry. Section 1152 generally establishes a uniform annual numerical limit on immigrant visas for nationals of each foreign country. Had Congress intended to enact a general bar against nationality-based distinctions, it would have enacted such a bar as a general provision of the INA, rather than as a subpart of a subsection speaking to the implementation ofnati onality-based numerical limitations for the issuance of immigrant visas.

Finally, the State mischaracterizes the Executive Order as “tak[ing] us back to a period in our history when distinctions based on national origin were accepted . . . rather than outlawed.” TRO Mot. at 20. As an initial matter, the State repeatedly characterizes the Executive Order as discriminating on the basis of “national origin.” See TRO Mot. at 1, 6. But the Executive Order does not distinguish on the basis of national origin insofar as that term implicates ethnic heritage; rather, discrimination on the basis of nationality implicates whether “a person ow[es] permanent allegiance to a state.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(21) (defining “national”). In any event, in 2015, Congress amended the INA to single out nationals of Iraq, Syria, and other to-be-designated countries for exclusion from the Visa Waiver Program. See Background, Section II.B. It is that same group of countries that is covered by Section 3(c) of the Executive Order, which expressly cross-references 8 U.S.C. § 1187(a)(12). And Section 5(c)
of the Executive Order applies to nationals of Syria, one of the countries Congress expressly identified. Accordingly, the President has joined with Congress in selecting the seven countries whose nationals warrant different treatment on the basis of national security and foreign policy . . . "

Seems pretty convincing to me, but then again, the judge granted the TRO, finding that there was a substantial likelihood that the states would prevail on the merits. You can watch the argument here. http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/news/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al-video-posted (argument at 33:04/44:51).

The states raised the usual equal protection, establishment, due process arguments that didn't make much headway in Louhghalam v. Trump. It also had other claims in their complaint, but it doesn't look like they got briefed or argued in the TRO. The states relied most heavily on due process and the establishment cause.

I think the judge granted the TRO based on the argument that the EO applied to people who were already in the the country -- not green card holders, but people who were here and who were entitled to due process and equal protection under the constitution or people who were here and working for the UW (for example) and then left and want to come back. The judge does suggest that there is no factual basis for the order at 39:00. Hmmmmm. He should avoid that. Libtard! At 52:30 states' counsel also cited to the two orders from other courts where it was held that the EO violated due process, at least in part. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/ny-immigration-order-stay/ So, the Washington case is not alone.

If anything, the judge should be impeached for wearing a bow-tie. The shame!


-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

Sensible? I would remind you that y'all have just elected a President
who immediately embarked on the very programs that he stated in his
pre-election speeches as being what he intended to do.

And now you claim that 99% of the population are sensible? I have to
ask, is it possible to be elected president if only 1% of the
population votes for you?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

quick n assumptive....A+c=D

The judge does suggest that there is no factual basis for the order at 39:00

WTH if they were here working n went there and are coming back then there's due process

or if there a close relative of same

or if the physical visa cancelled is for a fellow traveler or professional involved in professionals, then we need a hearing.

so advance to the 90 days before going Hollywood

what Rump said abt this in a n interview is pure crap. Most of what comes out of this man's mouth is garbage.

InCROYABE no matter how cut

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

ach ooops sorry I lost sight of the author as Beattie....

I wuz wondering why Pence n McConnnelll were into damage control then I read the interview excerpt.....unfair cutout off course. and Rump's 'facts' are off course pertinent ....