The Jury Talks Back

6/28/2018

All We Have Is Conversation

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 8:02 am

As I recently listened to an older Sam Harris podcast, I heard him make the point that “all we have is conversation.” In other words, to change things, we either have force or we have conversation. (He made the point in the context of decrying the left’s tendency to reject conversation by using threats and violence to shut people up.)

It’s a simple but profound observation.

He also makes the point elsewhere that Donald Trump, together with any followers of his who excuse his rampant lying, is also helping to destroy civil conversation by removing the concept of truth from the tools of meaningful discourse. (Truth is important to Harris, and to me. He once tried to speak with Jordan Peterson, and a two-hour conversation was completely hijacked by Harris’s inability to get past Peterson’s odd concept of truth as a malleable concept whose meaning somehow depends on its evolutionary value. But that’s another discussion.) So Harris believes that the left and Trump are both destroying civil conversation. I agree wholeheartedly. It’s another reason I like listening to Harris.

I’m going to again recommit to trying to have civil conversations without engaging in the type of behavior that derails it. I am not perfect and my adherence to this commitment will not be perfect. But a commitment to try ensures that I’ll try harder. So here you go.

P.S. Like the last time I announced a similar commitment, this announcement can easily be misunderstood as a declaration that I will no longer criticize Donald Trump or something. If that’s what you’re taking from this, you’re not getting it. I hope to be civil in the way Sam Harris is civil. He decries Donald Trump in the fiercest terms possible, but he is willing to have a polite conversation with anyone about that or any other topic.

6/27/2018

Supreme Court: No More Forced Union Dues for Public Sector Unions

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:51 am

Three cheers for the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday in Janus v. AFSCME that nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions.

The case, one of the most hotly anticipated of the term, is the second in two days to hand a major victory to conservatives, following Tuesday’s holding by the court that President Donald Trump’s travel ban is constitutional. Some experts have said that a holding in favor of the plaintiff, Mark Janus, would be the most significant court decision affecting collective bargaining in decades.

They have been taking these dues from me at gunpoint for years.

I have one question.

Do I get my money back?

MSNBC Yapper: The United States Is Now Worse than Venezuela or Cuba

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:45 am

Steve “Compassionate Conservative” Schmidt is upset, and he wants you to know it:

“The extraordinary and astounding hypocrisy of it, to see the constancy of the assertion of Christian virtue by political leaders in this country who have established internment camps for babies and toddlers,” Schmidt said. “By the way, and I never in a million years thought I would sit here or anywhere and say this, but the difference now between Venezuela and Cuba and the United States is this. Venezuela and Cuba are the countries without internment camps for babies and toddlers.”

Also they have poverty, starvation, and political repression:

Venezuela is currently in extreme economic distress due to the socialist policies of authoritarian President Nicolas Maduro. Maduro has cracked down on human rights as the country faces food and medical shortages owing to its current crisis. Cuba is a Communist country with a poor human rights record and a regime that imprisons political opponents.

You might remember Schmidt from such campaigns as Ahhhhnold or John McCain. He’s great at backing people who are Republicans but not particularly conservative. Now he’s an MSNBC analyst: a natural progression.

Allahpundit explains the game happening here:

The game is called “Crisis” and you win to the extent that your sense of despair at it outstrips others’. Opposing child separation is meh; demonstrating against it is better; saying that it places us at a moral disadvantage to the Maduro regime is an all-star performance. The spate of liberals demonstrating outside Trump aides’ homes, kicking staffers out of restaurants, and all the tedious Antifa-esque defenses of it online over the last few days are big point-scorers too. How much do you care? Enough to yank that cheese plate out of Sarah Sanders’s hand? Enough to write political spank material for leftists about how civility towards persons such as these is itself immoral? It’s a game.

The United States is attempting to stem a flood of immigrants into our borders, because we have the highest standard of living on the continent. That is what is happening. Full stop.

The trouble with statements like Schmidt’s, other than that they are idiotic, is that they get used as propaganda in other countries. Other countries where actual repression occurs. Other countries with actual internment camps.

Pro-tip: Don’t exaggerate the faults of the United States, and compare us to actual terrible countries — unless your goal is to give aid and comfort to actual terrible countries. In which case, your moral compass is way of whack. Maybe even more out of whack than Donald Trump’s!

For the Man Who (Says He) Owns Everything, Get Him a Medium Where He Can Own Himself

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:26 am

Wow! President Donald J. Trump:

The woman who beat him, socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, says she’s for impeaching Trump:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Wednesday that she would support impeachment for President Trump if she wins in November.

The 28-year-old Democratic socialist, fresh off a shocking primary upset over 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley (D) in New York’s 14th district, made the comments in an interview on CNN.

“I would support impeachment,” the first-time candidate and former Bernie Sanders campaign organizer said. “I think that, you know, we have the grounds to do it.”

Wow!

P.S. NOW WE’RE DOING THE ALL CAPS THING:

UPDATE:

6/26/2018

Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban 5-4

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:19 am

The opinion is here.

Analysis as I can manage it.

UPDATE: I went straight to the language analyzing what I have discussed here at length: the interplay between 1182 and 1152. Here is the relevant part of the Court’s analysis:

Sections 1182(f) and 1152(a)(1)(A) thus operate in different spheres: Section 1182 defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the United States (and therefore eligible to receive a visa). Once § 1182 sets the boundaries of admissibility into the United States, § 1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on nationality and other traits. The distinction between admissibility — to which § 1152(a)(1)(A) does not apply — and visa issuance — to which it does — is apparent from the text of the provision, which specifies only that its protections apply to the “issuance” of “immigrant visa[s],” without mentioning admissibility or entry. Had Congress instead intended in § 1152(a)(1)(A) to constrain the President’s power to determine who may enter the country, it could easily have chosen language directed to that end.

In all the debates over this, I don’t remember anyone making this point, which the Court makes clearly and succinctly, in quite this way. If someone made this simple point, either it was not made clearly, it was buried inside a mass of bad arguments, or (this is possible) I just missed it. (I’d have to be shown clear evidence of that, with a link and a quote, before I believe it.) I don’t understand the nuts and bolts of how immigrants actually enter the country and never pretended to; I deferred to people with greater expertise than I had. And based on the arguments I saw, I always operated under the assumption — which was obviously incorrect — that visa issuance was central to the initial admission of immigrants (i.e. how can they get in without a visa?). Thus, I believed, the two provisions operated in the same sphere. (Recall that I said, over and over, that I am not an immigration law expert and my opinion on the statutory construction could be wrong.) If the two operated in the same sphere, it would be clear that Congress had limited the President’s authority under 1182. Since, as the Court explains today, they operate in different spheres, Congress didn’t.

Breezing through the dissent, I don’t see any significant argument against the Court’s position in this area. (Again, I could be missing it.) I assume it’s right.

That’s good. All I was ever concerned about was the President usurping the authority of Congress. It appears he didn’t. In that case, I revert to what was always my support for the executive order on policy grounds — that support no longer being undermined by concern that it is a power grab from Congress.

UPDATE x2: A quick glance suggests the reasoning behind the rejection of all Trump’s bigoted anti-Muslim statements as a basis to strike down the ban: “we may consider plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.” That makes perfect sense, and once you realize that is the standard, the answer is clear.

Looks like a good decision at first glance — but again, I have had time only for a glance.

UPDATE x3: This interesting dictum, announced with a flourish, will get some attention once the experts have told the reporters about it:

The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and -— to be clear -— “has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U.S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

Golf clap. As Dan Rather would say: “Courage!”

Prediction: you’ll probably see a debate about whether Korematsu has been “overruled,” with clueless reporters saying it has been, and other people correcting them. (As far as I can tell, it has not been overruled, but I have not had a chance to read the whole opinion so I will refrain from making a pronouncement.)

UPDATE x4: My memory in UPDATE number one may not have been entirely accurate. I was far more steeped in all this at the time and probably should not be writing about this in a hurry. Take literally everything I say in this hastily constructed post with bushfuls of salt. A quick glance (again, glances are all I have time for this morning) at old posts suggests that the distinction between entry and visa did come up, and I quoted one of the experts as making this response, which made sense to me at the time:

Here’s the Goverment’s initial argument on that issue:

Washington argued in district court that the President’s authority under § 1182(f) is limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), which provides, with certain exceptions, that “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.” But this restriction does not address the President’s authority under § 1182(f) to “suspend the entry” of aliens, which is an entirely different act under the immigration laws. An immigrant visa does not entitle an alien to admission to the United States, and even if an alien is issued a valid visa, he is subject to being denied admission to this country when he arrives at the border. See, e.g., Khan v. Holder, 608 F.3d 325, 330 (7th Cir. 2010). There is no inconsistency between § 1152(a)(1)(A) and the President’s issuance of the Order under § 1182(f).

I thought Bier disposed of that pretty well in his original op-ed:

Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between “the issuance of a visa” and the “entry” of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.

As far as the two statutes being “entirely different” acts, I think the point I made in an update to this post and fleshed out in this post has never been rebutted to my satisfaction. Namely:

I have shown that: 1) the two provisions are indeed in conflict when a President issues an order discriminating against immigrants on the basis of nationality or place of residence; 2) the only way to resolve this conflict is to view the President’s power to suspend entry under section 1182(f) as an exception to section 1152(a); and 3) Congress foreclosed the possibility that section 1182(f) functions as such an exception, by listing other exceptions but pointedly refusing to list 1182(f) as one.

This makes sense to me again, as a non-expert. This is why I thought the two were related. I now officially throw up my hands in confusion.

Again: what I say in haste this morning should not be viewed as anything but the opening of a discussion. I don’t have the luxury of reading the whole opinion, going back and looking at my old posts, and coming to a considered decision in this morning post. I have to go to work — right now.

6/25/2018

Maxine Waters: Hassle Trump Cabinet Members in Public

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:25 am

Self-righteousness is the most dangerous human emotion.

And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!

This is wrong. Jim Geraghty has a good take at National Review:

Angry mobs are not good for deterring a particular unwanted behavior. They are good for instilling fear and giving a lot of people an excuse to let out all of their antisocial or violent impulses with a thin patina of moral righteousness. “I’m not harassing and assaulting another human being, I’m standing up for human rights!” No doubt the man who tried to kill as many GOP congressmen as he could at the baseball field in Alexandria, Va., believed he was standing up for good causes and doing the right thing.

Harassment of public figures on the right is only going to lead to harassment of public figures on the left. No doubt everyone remembers their own favorite example of a breach of decorum and proper behavior: the guy in the Miami cheesecake factory, Joe Wilson shouting out “you lie!” at an Obama address to Congress, the man who dumped a beer on a lawmaker in a bar, the guy who harangued Ivanka Trump on a flight. The fake blood thrown at the private home of an NRA lobbyist. The guy who threw water at Tomi Lahren in a restaurant in New York. The audience disruptions at Julius C[ae]sar and Robert De Niro’s A Bronx Tale.

Some no doubt would argue that the president himself threw gasoline on this fire. At a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in February 2016, Trump said, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, okay. Just knock the hell — I promise you I will pay for the legal fees, I promise.” And then in Saint Louis a month later, Trump lamented that no one sufficiently hurts protesters at his speeches: “Nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right? And they’re being politically correct the way they take them out, so it takes a little bit longer. And honestly, protesters, they realize it. They realize that there are no consequences to protesting anymore.”

I’ll quibble with Geraghty’s citation of Joe Wilson, who did nothing but yell out the truth when he yelled out that Obama lied. But notice how (if you take Wilson’s nonviolent breach of decorum out of it), in that litany of threats and violence, virtually everything comes from the left. You could also talk about Charles Murray and the violent assault on his companion Allison Stanger (Geraghty does), or the protests and arrests at Berkeley surrounding a talk by Ben Shapiro, and outright violence surrounding a talk by Milo LongGreekName. All this anti-speech screaming and threats comes from the left and only the left…

…except for Trump, and his superfans (the folks at the DeNiro movie and Julius Caesar performance). Which makes his superfans cheer, and the rest of us shake our heads in disgust, that we have the equivalent of a Maxine Waters on “our side.”

If Maxine Waters cited Trump’s attempts to incite violence as justification for her own outrageous comments, saying something like “he wrote the New Rules, we’re just making him play by them” — she would still be wrong. If a bunch of conservatives yelled at Maxine Waters in a restaurant, I could see how they might feel justified — but they would still just be a bunch of loudmouth punks hassling someone in a restaurant.

The way to deal with the Maxine Waters crowd is to shine a light on them. Call them out at every opportunity. Ask every Democrat official you can whether they agree with her that cabinet members should be harassed in public.

If you are determined to “punch back twice as hard” (as our beloved former President once said), you’re using the actions of a few crazies on the other side to justify bad behavior that you want to engage in anyway. The people who carry out Maxine Waters’s exhortations are scum. The people who use those exhortations as an excuse aren’t much better.

Let me put it another way, and I’ll be blunt. If Maxine Waters dictates how you behave, you weren’t raised right.

6/24/2018

Amazon Associates Program

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 8:57 pm

Your periodic reminder that the search box is on the sidebar.

Thanks for remembering.

Fever Swampers of the Right Smear Office of Special Counsel Head Henry Kerner

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 3:16 pm

President Trump’s Special Counsel Henry Kerner is a friend of mine. I have known him for over 20 years. He is a former colleague at the District Attorney’s Office who helped get me my job there.

I attended a farewell party for Henry when he left Los Angeles and the D.A.’s office to go to Washington. Henry is a lifelong staunch conservative who went to Washington as part of the Tea Party revolution. Now he has been confirmed as the head of Trump’s Office of Special Counsel — an office that protects federal whistleblowers and addresses Hatch Act violations, among other things.

In the reports concerning the scandal in which the IRS targeted Tea Party organization, Henry was deeply involved in the dissent to the majority report that laid out the reasons that the IRS’s targeting was so repulsive and wrong. As the Washington Post noted at the time:

Republicans offered dissenting conclusions in the Senate report, determining that the TIGTA audit was “accurate and proper” and saying that 83 percent of the targeted groups were right-leaning. “Simply stated, the IRS treated these conservative and Tea Party groups differently from other non-conservative groups,” the GOP members said.

Henry is the last person in the world who would ever be a part of targeting Tea Party groups. He was instrumental in calling out the IRS for what it did.

Imagine my surprise, then, to see my friend labeled by the nutcase far-right Conservative Treehouse fever swamp blog as a “deep state fixer.” I won’t repeat their nonsense, but it is standard far-right conspiracy theorizing about the “deep state” — only this time I know the guy involved, and I know it’s not true.

Conservative BananaHouse doesn’t bother to tell you that the report from the minority, in which Henry was involved, was on the side of the Tea Party groups. They make it sound like Henry was investigating himself or something, which is laughable.

Fever swamper Jim Hoft printed a similarly irresponsible post but has issued a semi-retraction. Hoft originally reported this story with a breathless headline labeling Henry a “D.C. Hatchet Man” — as you can see in their original URL:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/stunning-dc-hatchet-man-behind-coordinated-irs-attacks-on-tea-party-is-currently-in-charge-of-all-dc-special-investigations/

But if you follow the link, you’ll see that Hoft now reports Henry’s side, after Henry spoke to Hoft:

Henry told us the report is inaccurate. The Tea Party targeting occurred before the 2012 election and the report in question by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was published in September 2014. Henry’s name and Senator McCain’s name were on the report but the Republican minority at the time refused to sign Carl Levin’s report and released a report of their own.

Henry worked for Rep. Darrell Issa and was a member of the Harvard Republican club. Henry currently serves as head of the Office of Special Counsel.

Henry disputes this week’s reports. He says the IRS targeting scandal was strictly a Democrat endeavor.

Henry Kerner agreed with The Gateway Pundit that Judicial Watch is an excellent organization.

The allegations originated with Judicial Watch, who released notes from an IRS staffer purporting to quote Henry as saying that “maybe the solution [for groups abusing their 501(c)(4) status] is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous”:

Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501(c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. Henry Kerner noted that these organizations don’t disclose donors. Lois Lerner said that if they don’t meet the requirements, we can come in and revoke, but it doesn’t happen timely. Nan Marks said if the concern is that organizations engaging in this activity don’t disclose donors, then the system doesn’t work. Henry Kerner said that maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous. Nikole noted that we have budget constraints. Elise Bean suggested using the list of organizations that made independent expenditures. Lois Lerner said that it is her job to oversee it all, not just political campaign activity.

Judicial Watch takes the comments out of context to suggest — perhaps as payback for OSC’s finding that Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act? Who knows? — that Henry was somehow complicit in the targeting of Tea Party groups. Unfortunately, probably because of Judicial Watch’s unfair portrayal, even Larry O’Connor at the Washington Times — not a fever swamper — mistakenly alleged that Henry was talking about Tea Party groups.

A new report from Judicial Watch reveals a concerted effort from Sen. John McCain’s office to urge the IRS under Lois Lerner to strike out against political advocacy groups, including tea party organizations.

This is badly wrong, and Larry presents zero evidence in support of that allegation — and the timing doesn’t support it at all, which Larry would realize if he stopped to think about it for a moment.

Nothing in the quoted passage from the IRS staffer’s notes suggests that Henry was talking about Tea Party groups — and Lois Lerner’s admission that the IRS had previously targeted these groups came just ten days later, meaning that the IRS targeting had long since happened before Henry asked the question (assuming the notes are accurate, which I do not). Obviously, the years-long targeting did not take place in ten days. So what was Henry talking about? Even though the IRS/Tea Party scandal was an outrage, there are definitely non-profits that abuse their status as supposedly apolitical outfits (can you say ACORN?) and a new staffer asking questions about what to do about such abusive groups is hardly evidence of targeting groups for improper reasons.

This is truly Bizarro World. Best of all, even though Senator McCain was infuriated by the Tea Party scandal, this total nothingburger has been used to make McCain sound like he was part of the Lerner brigade. Here are the top comments at a post on the controversy at PJMedia:

McCain Comments at PJM

Nothing makes a made-up controversy better than sprinkling a nice dose of evil on top.

Jane, stop this crazy thing.

UPDATE: A few more points that just cement how ridiculous this all is. First, pull up the notes from the IRS staffer and look for the words “Tea Party” or “conservative.” Do you see them? I can’t find them. Second of all, look how many people are there, and look at all the questions Henry is asking. He is clearly learning about this process for the first time. Even if you didn’t know Henry and his conservatism the way I do, the notion that he is walking into a large group of strangers and making an improper suggestion to target Tea Party groups, when he is obviously meeting these people for the first time, is ludicrous.

Should Other Countries Target Trump’s Businesses?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 9:02 am

Business Insider has an article that claims that countries upset about Trump’s tariffs are thinking about targeting Trump’s businesses in retaliation:

President Donald Trump’s headlong push toward a trade war is prompting unprecedented responses from countries around the world and blowback from top US allies.

In the past three months, Trump has hit countries around the world with a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum exports to the US. The decision prompted a swift response from US allies, including retaliatory tariffs and a radical departure in treatment from other formerly friendly foreign leaders — from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to French President Emmanuel Macron.

But so far these responses have done little to deter Trump from moving forward with his trade agenda, prompting the the consideration of an out-of-the-box response for an out-of-the-box president.

Op-eds in The Houston Chronicle and the Canadian news magazine Maclean’s suggested the only way to quell the rising trade tensions is to strike at Trump’s businesses. While some countries, such as China, have appeared to try and sway the president through treating his family’s businesses more favorably, countries have not made moves to curtail the businesses’ activity within their borders.

This appears to be a case of fantasy; it’s a couple of op-eds and some politicos replying politely when asked about it. To me, it’s not worth a post based on the notion that it’s going to happen, because it’s not. It’s worth a post as a thought experiment about how people would discuss this option if it did occur — and as a warning about the danger of double standards.

Because if any country actually got up the nerve to do this (none will), it would be hard to mount a principled argument against it — that is, if you have been claiming so far that the favorable treatment his businesses have received from other countries is defensible.

And this is the problem with defending the indefensible. Eventually the argument gets turned around on you. As Popehat pointed out:

Similarly, if you promote the notion that Trump’s businesses are unrelated to his decisionmaking, and try to portray other countries’ using Trump businesses as a matter of no concern, then if it comes time for you to point out that countries are now targeting his businesses, you may find nobody cares.

The larger problem here is when a Democrat with very flawed character seeks the presidency. Remember how bad you said Hillary was? In four years, you’ll be telling me that whoever they picked this time was worse. But if you’ve spent four years defending Trump’s poor character, your complaints about the Democrats’ character are going to be less convincing.

And so it goes with applying a different standard to Trump than you would apply to anyone else. People will remember.

Sunday Music: Bach Cantata BWV 81

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 12:01 am

It is the fifth Sunday after Pentecost. The title of today’s Bach cantata is “Jesus schläft, was soll ich hoffen?” (Jesus sleeps, what shall I hope for?)

Today’s Gospel reading is Mark 4:35-41.

Jesus Calms the Storm

That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, “Let us go over to the other side.” Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”

The text of today’s piece is available here. The cantata is a perfect musical companion to the Gospel reading, in which the sleeping Jesus awakens to calm the storm and protect those who believe in Him.

Jesus sleeps, what can I hope for?

. . . .

Quiet, heaving sea!
Be silent, storm and wind!
Your bounds are set for you,
so that my chosen child
will never suffer mishap.

O joy to me, my Jesus speaks a word,
my helper is awake,
so must the storm’s waves, the night of misfortune
and all trouble disappear.

Under your protection
I am safe from the storms
of all enemies.
Let Satan rage,
let the enemy fume,
Jesus stands with me.
Whether now it thunders and flashes,
whether sin and Hell terrify,
Jesus will protect me.

Happy listening!

6/23/2018

Restaurant Asks Sarah Sanders to Leave on Account of the Trumpiness

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 1:47 pm

Ridiculous:

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said she was told to leave a Virginia restaurant because she works for President Donald Trump.

Sanders wrote on Twitter on Saturday that the owner of Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, asked her to leave because of who she works for.

“Her actions say far more about her than about me,” Sanders tweeted. “I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so.”

A restaurant should have the right to serve, or not serve, anyone they like. Patrons should have the right to decide that they won’t eat at establishments that refuse service to someone because of their political beliefs.

A man who says he was Sanders’ waiter at the farm-to-table restaurant wrote on Facebook that he only served her for a couple minutes before the owner “asked her to leave and she complied.”

“Her family left on their own accord, we didn’t actually refuse service or ‘kick her out,'” he wrote in the Facebook post.

Of course the restaurant kicked her out. If she’s asked to leave and refuses, she’s trespassing. Don’t pretend management didn’t kick her out. They absolutely did.

Another step towards the politicization of literally everything.

6/22/2018

Viral Photo of Girl Separated from Parents Turns Out to Show Girl Who Had Not Been Separated

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 9:20 am

Who cares? It served its propaganda purpose.

The widely shared photo of the little girl crying as a U.S. Border Patrol agent patted down her mother became a symbol of the families pulled apart by the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy at the border, even landing on the new cover of Time magazine.

But the girl’s father told The Washington Post on Thursday night that his child and her mother were not separated, and a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed that the family was not separated while in the agency’s custody.

The revelation has prompted a round of media criticism from the White House and other conservatives.

“It’s shameful that dems and the media exploited this photo of a little girl to push their agenda,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted Friday. “She was not separated from her mom. The separation here is from the facts.”

The heart-wrenching image, captured by award-winning Getty Images photographer John Moore, was spread across the front pages of international newspapers. It was used to promote a Facebook fundraiser that has collected more than $18 million to help reunite separated families.

And on Thursday, hours before the little girl’s father spoke out, Time magazine released its July 2 cover using the child’s image — without the mother — in a photo illustration that shows her looking up at President Trump, who is seen towering above her.

Screen Shot 2018-06-22 at 9.13.01 AM

. . . .

A Time story recounting the photographer’s experience initially stated the girl was carried away screaming by border agents, and later corrected the article to say that the two were taken away together.

The news that this one fake photo created a fake narrative of a separated child should not be used to distract us from the very real fact that Big Media has created a fake narrative about a “separation policy.”

UPDATE: It’s probably worth noting that the girl was crying, not because of what ICE did to her, but because she was tired and thirsty after the trip her mother had put her through:

“We were patrolling the border. It was after 10 o’clock at night,” Border Patrol agent Carlos Ruiz told CBS News’ David Begnaud. He was the first to encounter Sandra Sanchez and her daughter after they allegedly crossed the Rio Grande River into Texas illegally.

“We asked her to set the kid down in front of her, not away from her, she was right in front of her…So we can properly search the mother,” Ruiz said. “So the kid immediately started crying as she set her down. I personally went up to the mother and asked her ‘Are you doing OK? Is the kid OK?’ and she said, ‘Yes. She’s tired and thirsty. It’s 11 o’clock at night.’”

Her dad back in Honduras was upset at the mom: “I didn’t support it. I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that? But it was her decision at the end of the day.” Also, she left three other children back in Honduras, who probably cried when she left although we have no pictures of them doing so.

But Trump!

UPDATE x2: Time Magazine is standing by its fake cover.

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.