Friday, April 27, 2018
Plane Falls From Sky...
More Amazing Gifs:
Bet You've Never Had A Day This Bad...
More Amazing Animated Gifs HERE
Animated Gif Collection #2 HERE
Animated Gif Collection #3
Animated Gif Collection #4
Animated Gif Collection #5 -OR- Motorcycles And Bulls Don't Mix..
Animated Gif Collection #6 or Bet She Lost Some Teeth...
Animated Gif Collection #7 -OR- This Is What Happens When You Fall Asleep While Driving...
Animated Gif Collection #8 -OR- Fish: 1, Dog: 0
Out Of Control Bus -OR- Animated Gif Collection #9
How To Launch An Oil Truck Into The Air -OR- Animated Gif Collection #10
Animated Gif Collection #2 HERE
Animated Gif Collection #3
Animated Gif Collection #4
Animated Gif Collection #5 -OR- Motorcycles And Bulls Don't Mix..
Animated Gif Collection #6 or Bet She Lost Some Teeth...
Animated Gif Collection #7 -OR- This Is What Happens When You Fall Asleep While Driving...
Animated Gif Collection #8 -OR- Fish: 1, Dog: 0
Out Of Control Bus -OR- Animated Gif Collection #9
How To Launch An Oil Truck Into The Air -OR- Animated Gif Collection #10
----------------------------------------
Supreme Court Travel Ban Arguments Suggest Win for Trump Likely
On Wednesday, there were plenty of protesters outside the courthouse, a few politicians inside the courthouse (including White House counsel Don McGahn, Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mazie Hirono, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte), and even a celebrity (Lin-Manuel Miranda) as two seasoned litigants took their turn at the podium to argue the long-awaited travel ban case.
And while it is difficult to say with any precision how the case will come out, it seemed that among the justices, a majority (perhaps a bare majority) appeared to be leaning the government’s way.
The case involves the legality of the third iteration of President Donald Trump’s so-called travel ban in which the president has, at least temporarily, suspended the admission of individuals from seven countries—Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela—subject to case-by-case waivers. Two countries—Iraq and Sudan—that had previously been on the list were subsequently dropped, and a third country—Chad—was dropped earlier this month.
The Trump Administration’s Argument
The proclamation itself explains the process the administration went through in determining which countries to include on the list. It describes how the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security created a baseline of criteria for countries to meet and measured nearly 200 countries against that baseline.
At the end of this process, 16 countries were found to be deficient, and 31 countries were “at risk.” This began a period of engagement with each of those governments to address these deficiencies, after which the final list was compiled.
The proclamation also explains the reasons why the remaining countries are still on the list. They share some combination of the following characteristics: some are state sponsors of terrorism, some are safe havens for terrorists, some refuse to cooperate with us, and some lack the institutional capacity to cooperate effectively with us. As Solicitor General Noel Francisco, arguing on behalf of the administration, put it Wednesday:
After a worldwide multi-agency review, the president’s acting Homeland Security secretary recommended that he adopt entry restrictions on countries that failed to provide the minimum baseline of information needed to vet their nationals. The proclamation adopts those recommendations. It omits the vast majority of the world, including the vast majority of the Muslim world, because they met the baseline. It now applies to only seven countries that fall below that baseline or had other problems, and it exerts diplomatic pressure on those countries to provide the needed information and to protect the country until they do.
Francisco also argues that Congress has given the president all the authority he needs to issue this order through Section 1182(f) of the Immigration Act, which provides:
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.
Travel Ban Opponents’ Argument
The challengers, represented by former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, claim that, in issuing his proclamation, the president exceeded his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and that his proclamation violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution because it was motivated, not for national security reasons, but rather by a desire to exclude Muslims from this country.
In terms of his statutory argument, Katyal argued that...
Germany: Muslim migrant children bully and beat up non-Muslim boy for eating pork – an ambulance was needed
“Migrants bully and beat up German boy for eating pork – an ambulance was needed,” Voice of Europe, April 19, 2018:
After German daily newspaper “The Tagesspiegel” asked their readers to tell about incidents of school violence and bullying, they received a lot of replies.
“Our son is in fourth grade at a middle school and has been bullied since the first year. He was abused, beaten and kicked because he is German. Classmates call him ‘German pig’, ‘pig’ and ‘German potato’. At his school are mainly children with a migrant background. Most are Muslims,” one family says.
The boy and his family live in Berlin-Mitte, which is a multicultural neighbourhood, according to them. “We like to live there, we have a motley circle of friends. But our son being bullied and attacked for allegedly eating pork is simply unbearable for us. He does not even eat any, we are vegetarians.”
“In addition to countless insults that he has to listen to daily, our son was kicked down a staircase and beaten several times in the schoolyard – sometimes in front of the teacher. He was picked up from school by the ambulance more than once”, the family continues.
The boy once had to stay in a hospital for a weekend because a classmate had kicked him in the stomach and it was unclear whether any organs were injured, the family...
Boom: Treasury kills 305 regulations, IRS hammered
Acting on President Trump’s demand that his cabinet secretaries gut Obama-era federal regulations, the Treasury Department on Tuesday said it has cut over 300 standing and proposed rules with a focus on the Internal Revenue Service.
In a new 20-page report, Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin highlighted the elimination of 305 regulations, including those proposed, and the wiping away of 298 IRS “deadwood” rules.
“Reducing unnecessary burdens will lead to increased economic growth, greater job creation, and a fundamentally stronger economy for our country,” said Mnuchin. “Regulatory reform is a key component of the president’s plan to make American businesses more competitive and create opportunities for hard-working Americans,” he added.
In its effort to comply with Trump’s orders, including killing two old regulations for every new one imposed, Treasury officials put a spotlight on the IRS where several major rules, many pushed by the Obama administration, have been killed.
Among those was one that let the IRS use non-governmental outsiders to audit Americans.
It has also set up a plan to change or eliminate up to 20 other key IRS rules.
The key highlights from Treasury:
- Eliminating, reducing, or proposing to eliminate more than 300 regulations in total, including ineffective, unnecessary, or out-of-date “deadwood” regulations.
- Reducing Treasury’s regulatory agenda by approximately 100 items, year-over-year, from Fall 2016 to Fall 2017.
- More than 250 specific Treasury recommendations to reform and reduce the burdens of regulation in the U.S. domestic financial system.
- Introducing zero new significant regulatory actions.
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #239
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)