The Jury Talks Back


Trump 2013: Openly Celebrating a Nuclear Deal Shows Weakness

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:18 am



No, it’s not news that a fool occupies the White House. But the hypocrisy is still newsworthy.

(H/t Allahpundit.)

Here’s a Sean Hannity “then and now” video. Embedding something from the Daily Show makes me throw up in my mouth a little, but the video is genuinely hilarious, and the source doesn’t matter when the hypocrisy is this stark:

No, it’s not news that Sean Hannity is an unprincipled fool. But the hypocrisy is still good for a laugh.


  1. Great dealmakers Conmen change the rules during the game. It confuses the marks and makes them think the conman is playing 3D chess that they can’t understand.

    Comment by DRJ — 6/14/2018 @ 8:34 am

  2. ^^^ DRJ nailed it.

    Comment by Sean — 6/14/2018 @ 9:35 am

  3. I used to like Sean. Listened to him all the time. He was one of the earliest and loudest voices warning of the problems in the closet with then Senator Obama.

    Yet, in spite of his vigorous defense of liberty and the Republic, he had this bizarre fetish for NE liberal elitists like Guilliani and Trump. Between that, and his constant shrillness, I turned him off about ten years ago.

    Now, every time I see his smirking, condescending, unprincipled mug, I taste a bit of vomit in the back of my throat also.

    Comment by Glenn — 6/14/2018 @ 11:29 am

  4. Regarding the story about separating immigrant children from parent: This has generated a lot of emotion, and it seems like most oppose separating illegal immigrant families. The government has responded that it does not have a policy if separating families unless “the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between ‘family’ members, or if the adult has broken a law.”

    I agree with this. If you take your child with you when you commit a crime, you and your child will be separated. There are many, many examples of this happening with citizens, too.

    IMO what we are seeing is that people feel like illegal immigration isn’t a real crime so it should not have the same consequences. But it is a real crime and we need to start treating it like one, including facing the fact that you endanger your family if you break the law.

    Comment by DRJ — 6/18/2018 @ 7:42 am

  5. Surely and there were laws passed in 1997 and 2002, that made this possible, but they don’t want to address that issue.

    Comment by narciso — 6/18/2018 @ 8:52 am

  6. But you see the memo is more than ten truth.

    Comment by narciso — 6/18/2018 @ 8:58 am

  7. 4. Comment by DRJ — 6/18/2018 @ 7:42 am

    IMO what we are seeing is that people feel like illegal immigration isn’t a real crime


    And they’re right.

    In no way is that a Malum in se .

    It is a Malum prohibitum.

    And rather new to the world. Barely more than a century and a quarter old. Anywhere.

    You’re prepared to argue differently??

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 6/18/2018 @ 9:32 am

  8. 5. Comment by narciso — 6/18/2018 @ 8:52 am

    Surely and there were laws passed in 1997 and 2002, that made this possible, but they don’t want to address that issue.

    It made it possible, but not required.

    The current issue of National Review has Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s reflections on his 1978 speech at Harvard.

    And he writes::

    Western society in principle is based on a legal level that is far lower than the true moral yardstick, and besides, this legal way of thinking has a tendency to ossify.

    Now waht we have is thaht both Democrats and Republicans are drawing their morality from the law..

    Only the Rrepublicans draw it from the law as it truly is, and treat things like it settles all arguments about morality, unless you want to say the law should be repealed, ehich si scary, and unnecessary

    While the Democrats say the law is whatever conforms to their sense of morality – if it seems like it doesn’t, then it is unconstitutional, and so not truly the law; and unconstitutional always because of the 14th, or maybe the First, amendment. They are not interested, or aware of, any other possible legal arguments.

    Both sides want to say law and morality (at least in the United States) are equal, but go about it different ways. Democrats alter and distort the law; Republicans alter and distort morality.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 6/18/2018 @ 9:46 am

  9. The thinking on this issue is poor.

    The first thing they get wrong is this idea of enforcing the law for the sake of enforcing the

    No one should ever concede that point. You lose the argument right from the start when you do that.

    As I said, the thinking on this issue is poor. On the part oof just about everyone.

    And also there’s the idea the idea that every country has a right (which somehow morphs into a duty) to protect its sovereignty.

    There’s nothing Judeo-Christian about that. It is an extremely secular idea. That doesn’t mean the alternative is open borders. It means you favor illegal immigrants. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    Paradoxical maybe, but that’s what you get with this kind of law.

    Now Trump’s people are saying that Trump is going against his base. Maybe they are convincing him of that. The truth is, he’ll get just as much
    trouble from giving them 15% as he will from givinmg them 85% of what they want. But Trump probably doesn’t realize this thing.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 6/18/2018 @ 9:56 am

  10. The immigration is heading toward the place the slavery issue was before the Civil War, although it won’t have such bad consequences – just dominate U.S. politics, and there won’t be any other issue.

    Trump is now actively pushing it there. He now says he will shut down the government if he doesn’t get full funding for the wall.

    Enough Democrats are actually willing to give him that, provided that they also get legal status for those who were covered by DACA.

    But he keeps on sayinbg he also wants several other things (at least in a bill that legalizes DACA)

    1. An end to sanctuary cities and states

    2. And an end to the visa lottery,

    3. And reductions of grounds for family re-unification.

    And it possible Democrats might also accept symbolic action against sanctuary cities and states – I stress symbolic – but they are not going to remove any eligibility anyone has to legally immigrate in anything but a comprehensive bill and even theer the visa lottery but not family re-unification, which affects voters.

    So the federal government is heading toward a shutdown that will not end before the November election.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 6/18/2018 @ 10:02 am

  11. There’s another issue, which probably stems from some people hsaving too much power.

    Although it’s not supposed to happen, (unless requested) people are leaving the country while their children remain here.

    This might be because legal steps need to be taken for them to sent away together. An adult can accept voluntary departure but a child cannot. (maybe the parent can on behalf of the child but the parent has to be aware of court proceedings)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 6/18/2018 @ 10:15 am

  12. Have they mention the 97 court case and the 02 law

    Comment by narciso — 6/18/2018 @ 3:33 pm

  13. Thank you very much for responding, Sammy. I’ve been away this afternoon and you’ve posted a lot of content. I will look at it and respond later. Thanks again.

    Comment by DRJ — 6/18/2018 @ 5:43 pm

  14. Sammy,

    It sounds like you think only laws that are moral should be enforced, and that you view immigration laws as not based on morality. If so, do you think there should be civil but not criminal penalties for immigration law violations? Would you treat them more like traffic tickets?

    I think that is how they were treated during Obama’s terms. Do you think that was successful?

    Comment by DRJ — 6/18/2018 @ 8:38 pm

  15. 14. Comment by DRJ — 6/18/2018 @ 8:38 pm

    Would you treat them more like traffic tickets?
    Not even that really, for the most part. But that’s acceptable. Remember, people coming illegally already pay a price any way in dollars, and worry so this is not adding very much.
    I think that is how they were treated during Obama’s terms. Do you think that was successful?
    Very successful. Migration continued at a slow and regular pace, and people usually had a place to go to. And if you wanted to, you could channel it differently.

    And if by succeed you mean the law reduced immigration, immigration law has done that.

    About 150 million people would move to the U.S. if they could (this number would probably rise if it actually happened if the immigration was successful)

    Divide that over a 10 year period, and we have 15 million a year. The actual number is about 1 million. (more than half, 600,000, being change of status) And there’s about 500,000 illegal entries and overstays.

    The law is, therefore, about 90% effective. All this is about raising it from 90% to, say, 95%, or preventimg it from going down to 85%.

    There’s no need to try for the last mile, which can never be reached anyway.

    All these numbers are vey low compared to the total U.S. population whixh is some 375 million.

    1.5 million a year is less than half of one percent. 15 million would still be only 5%, and its easy enough to write provisions that affect the conditions under which people come.

    Chile has a law that lets anyone who gets a job contract stay.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 6/19/2018 @ 10:25 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview

Powered by WordPress.