What the Hell Was That?

I imagine the sound was something like a turkey being hit by a tennis ball. The fury and horror derived curse/choke/squawk that the NSA’s listening devices picked up in my living room this afternoon was an entirely involuntary vocalization. It came from my mouth, though I doubt I could recreate it without seeing Maxine Waters in missionary.

This reaction was prompted by a headline blaring our latest chronicle of the Kritarchy. Specifically that a San Francisco judge has blocked Trump’s threat of withholding federal grants from cities that invite and harbor illegal aliens.

It’s pointless to mention that federal grants are neither entitlements nor unconditional when judges are in hot-pursuit of result-oriented expedients. Grants are, in fact, purposed specifically to incentivize local obedience to federal directives. That’s the only candid reason they exist; otherwise states and municipalities could simply use their own revenues as they wish, rather than shipping them to Washington to be returned ladled with strings. There is a long and eminently dishonorable history of DC using grants as alternating bribe and threat in bringing fractious hinterlands to heel. But now that practice won’t do at all.

The easiest recourse in this situation would be to have the inert suit-racks in congress (allegedly there’s a republican majority) pass a bill by Friday that bans all grants to sanctuary cities–and mandates a punitive missile strike for the trouble. But that would involve Paul Ryan running past his neocon choke collar, and so that possibility is foreclosed. Which is really all to save the time it would take a court to declare the law unconstitutional. I’m sure something in the do-everything 14th Amendment can be found. It’s truly the Constitution’s Shamwow. But whatever penumbras must be mined, the antifa judiciary just isn’t much interested in what other branches or the voting public have to say on the matter.

Though what most caught my eye from this San Fran Sanhedrin was the following passage:

Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive.

It should be considered an act of punishable desecration when oily liberals disinter the corpse of the 10th Amendment to pretend it is speaking by their ventriloquism. Like most of you, I did not realize the 10A “requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive.” But here’s where it says that:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As you can see, the amendment is actually quite reserved in its pronouncements on federal funds to the states. This being a pardonable omission since such things didn’t exist at the time of its writing.

What did exist at the time, however, was Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution, decreasingly referred to out of embarrassment as the Enumerated Powers. See where in that part you can find federal authority on such matters as gay marriage, segregation, black entitlement, or abortion among a riot of others. Normally I wouldn’t bother to pound a nail that’s already a foot deep in the plank. But to hear a prog actually cite this victimized provision as a premise to support limitless alien sanctuary is more duplicity than what our mortal flesh should have to bear.

And the judge wasn’t finished…

Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.

That’s very heartening news. Because there’s much a man can extrapolate from that statement. For instance, presumably this judge would concur that federal funding (and more importantly federal troops) cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses a desegregation enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves.

What a disappointment to have had no Obama-appointed judges in Arkansas 1957 or Alabama 1965. In issuing their bayonet injunctions, these liberal courts would have certainly given Eisenhower and Johnson stern lectures about the 10th Amendment’s bright line limitations on federal authority and coercive actions.

Though perhaps the most gratifying part of all for the plaintiff urban catch-basins is that Trump’s solicitor conceded in court that the entire get-tough-on-illegals posture was nothing but a charade.

The government attorneys actually entered into the record that the President’s order is toothless by design. That is to say, Come on, judge. We’re not trying to upset the population replacement program. This is just gruel for the rubes, so how about a wink huh?

And somewhere in the dank courtroom recesses came the muffled cry of a turkey hit by a tennis ball.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “What the Hell Was That?

  1. I have written comments on this topic here before. The inferior, meaning district and appellate, federal courts’ jurisdiction is a function of statutory law. Republicans control the Senate and the House, and there is a Republican President. They can revoke subject matter jurisdiction of the inferior courts tomorrow. Do it.

  2. I know this is hard to take, Porter. It was hard for me too, before I realized my limitations in comprehending the words, written in my mother’s tongue, in Muh Constitution. Once I understood that these words are not as simple as they appear, but instead shrewd Masonic cryptograms which can best (some say, only) be correctly interpreted by the huddled masses of wretched jew refuse that G-d Herself so miraculously washed onto our teeming shore.
    Once you come to terms with that, you can just relax, and resume enjoying that college treehockey tournament. Also, go long in rhinoplasty futures. When C.O.’s Zyklon mosquito drones hit the air, I think many a Sanfranhedrin will be going under the knife to evade detection. Maybe also put in an order for foreskin restoration technologies. Just a guess.

  3. Pingback: What the Hell Was That? | Reaction Times

  4. we took a chance on trump. we’re still losing. we are dead. no argument, no legal wrangling, no congressional act, nothing short of an unquenchable thirst for violence that outstrips our bloodthirsty opponents will save us. techumsah didn’t realize that he and his people were destined for history’s ash heap. by all looks and measures so are we.

  5. There’s no hope in the system, is there? Trump has proven that with thunderous clarity, whether he was a stooge from the beginning, yielded to pressure, or was finally presented with blackmail material that caused him to kneel to the Swamp. The only thing that will save the whites’ bacon is when the ancient mammal lurking underneath all the pretense — the blond beast, if you will — is goaded to the point of discarding its training for a time, heeding its survival instinct, and turning against its tormentors.

  6. Nice. I’ll admit I got baited and hooked into double-checking.

    It’s from the order, so it’s the judge’s own summary of what was said at oral argument. Maybe –yes, I know this might come off as very shocking, but maybe the judge’s summary is a little misleading? Maybe his use of the adjective “merely” was merely incorrect –as contrasted to “intentionally misleading” or “disingenuous” or “a lie”?

    Anyone got the transcript or the relevant part?

    • Here’s the generous view of that perspective: Trump’s attorneys were craftily trying to create the illusion of a benign “for-show” order, that would be unleashed in all its righteous fury once it had slid past a credulous courtroom. And for purposes of the subsequent judicial edict, the judge noted their explanation of no-actual-intent, but denied Trump’s order regardless because he believed the verbiage therein strained that assurance.

      In other words, the government action was a serpent dressed as a puppy. And the judge is saying “even though you say it’s a puppy, I can see it’s a serpent.”

      In contrast, I would think outright lies in the judge’s order would be quickly revealed by the transcript.

  7. It is way past time for the elected President to ignore these rogue judges and move on with the will of the majority. Courts have very limited power to implement both sound and unsound decisions. The President, Vice President and Cabinet can choose to ignore any judge’s partisan ruling; at the end of the day, the federal courts can do little about that.

    The executive branch has the greatest discretion and control over the disbursement of Federal funds. They also control the Army.

    Domestically Trump needs to act tougher than he talks and never forget who and what gave him the opportunity and obligation to serve the will of the people. The time has come to stop being a mouthpiece and act like a man.

  8. Trump is outright being embarrassed, disrespected and neutered in public.
    I guess we’ll find out if he’s man enough to react effectively.

  9. So stop obeying them. Every executive officer, everyone who take the constitutional oath, who then obeys subversive, unconstitutional orders issued in bad faith by subversive “judges”, is either a wuss, an idiot, or a traitor. I’m sick of people whining about how subversive judges “blocked” this and that. The shirkers who obey are every bit as responsible. “I vas chust follovink ordas”.

  10. P.S. The oath is not “I swear to obey judges”. The oath is to uphold the Constitution, and in the case of the President, to faithfully execute. To obey subversive decisions is to dishonor the oath.

  11. Pingback: K Blog: What The Hell Was That? | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  12. Things heated up around here for a bit after I went over to U.O. on the 20th and played a bagpipe tribute to Adolf Hitler on his 128th birthday.

    The following Youtube link should have been posted under “A Phalanx Forming”, but that comment thread probably isn’t getting read very much at this time, so I’ll take the liberty of posting it here and hope some of you will enjoy watching it. I certainly enjoy reading Porter’s articles here and would like to think I am reciprocating in my own crude way.

  13. “Trump’s solicitor”? You think they’ve figured out which of the justice departments lawyers are not obama clones yet? Do you think there are any that would understand or be sympathetic to the presidents views? This judges expostulations, just like the last one, were “opposed” by a laywer from Obama’s justice department. a lawyer who agreed with the judge.

      • Great Scot! you may be right. But how did i escape hearing about this on rush, hannity, savage, levin , or valentine? Damn radio hosts, asleep on the job again! But seriously, those lawyers don’t seem to have made very effective arguments.Sorry if that seems like a childish point to bring up. It’s late, getting tired.zzzzz…

      • Which babblers you pick your nose to is entirely irrelevant.

        Your original statement was to suggest the DOJ lawyers are Obama clones. I pointed out why they are not. Now you’re telling me about talk radio and effective arguments.

  14. Patriots should be celebrating the city’s nullification of federal law, as state and city nullification are what we need to get the Feds off our backs.

    Using these as precedents that we can use.

    • A resuscitation of the 10A would be utterly foundation-cracking for the entire liberal edifice. However, there’s zero indication that Trump or any other mewling conservatives intend to pursue that angle.

      In this case specifically though it’s not just a states’ rights issue. Under the Privileges and Immunities clause, citizens of California are also free to go to or become citizens of Connecticut or Kentucky. Which means an open border in one state is an open border in all states.

      That is unless we applied a strict 10A combined with an abolishment of the P&I clause. And that combination is what we used to call “separate countries.”

    • Why should patriots be celebrating megapolis criminal sanctuaries? The 10th was the means, not the end, in this case. The precedent is not “Muh Tenth”, but “Kill Whitey”. Again, ever again.
      And again, conservatives anthropomorphize the Left, believing that facts or logic or “magic words” will convince them to see the Light. Do what thou wilt to Whitey is the whole of their law. The rest is just for show.

      • True, there’s no allegedly core premise of the left that survives contact with the imperative for white disembowelment.

        Q: What’s a socialist, environmentalist, feminist, pro-white?

        A: A right-wing extremist!

  15. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/04/30) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s