James L. Paris's Blog, page 107

Dutch Politician Wilders: Trump Has Already Done More than Europe Ever Has to Fight Immigration

Perpetually-defiant Dutch politician Geert Wilders fired another salvo at his European brethren this week, declaring that Donald Trump has done more to fight mass immigration in the very brief amount of time he has occupied the White House than has anyone on the European continent ever.

As reported by The Daily Caller, Wilders, founder and leader of the Netherlands��� far-right populist Party for Freedom, made his comments during a book release in The Hague on Thursday.

Speaking about Trump, Wilders said, ���Here there is a politician who does not only keep his promises and fulfills his promises in the election campaign, but has done more to beat the mass immigration in two weeks��� time than the whole European governments [have] in their whole existence. I���m sure if we would have had that kind of policy for instance in the Netherlands and other countries in Europe, that a lot of turmoil, a lot of terrorism would have been spared.���

Wilders��� most significant policy effort has been to bring an abrupt end to what he calls ���the Islamization of the Netherlands.��� His tenor on the subject of Islam in Europe has been combative, to say the least: Wilders has previously compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler���s Mein Kampf, wants to end all immigration from Muslim countries, and is supportive of a ban on new mosque construction.

���Yesterday a new America, today Koblenz and tomorrow a new Europe,��� Wilders continued in his Thursday comments. ���We are the start of a patriotic spring in Europe.���

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Netherlands Says Doctor is Blameless After She Orders Woman Restrained During Assisted Suicide

What���s going on in the Netherlands?

While the nation has long held what it clearly sees as a more ���evolved��� view of euthanasia and the right of a person to choose to end their own life, recent events have many wondering if the national culture has not moved to a point where it is perhaps just a bit too eager to be done with those citizens who are not perfectly healthy in every way.

A few months back, this space told of the euthanization there of someone who could not beat his alcohol addiction. Now, word comes, by way of The Christian Post, that a government panel has cleared a doctor of any wrongdoing in connection with the death of an elderly woman who reportedly had to be restrained while her request to terminate her life was fulfilled.

The woman was suffering from dementia and had previously declared her wish to end her life on her terms. However, as the physician administered the lethal dose of drugs necessary to kill her, the subject began to resist. It was at this point that the doctor reportedly asked for the help of the woman���s family in keeping her restrained so that the euthanasia process could be completed.

However, Jacob Kohnstamm, chairman of the Regional Review Committee, the body that has oversight of euthanasia, said, ���I am convinced that the doctor acted in good faith, and we would like to see more clarity on how such cases are handled in the future.���

Kohnstamm���s determination aside, there appear to be lingering questions about how the procedure precisely unfolded in this case. Citing the Daily Mail as a source, the Post article mentions that the woman reportedly had second thoughts about terminating her life as the day approached, but that the doctor did not address the impending process with her ���because she did not want to cause unnecessary extra distress��� and see ���further disruptions��� created.

Further disruptions?

Jennifer Popik, director of the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee in Washington, D.C., told The Christian Post ���we certainly hope that this kind of example highlights just the kind of dangers of going down this path,��� and further said that ���we now see state-issued reports showing that people who are not terminally ill are receiving lethal medications.���

Popik also told the Post that Americans do not understand just how close the U.S. is to adopting euthanasia and Netherlands-like guidelines for its application.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Former Obama Official Writes on Ways to Get Rid of President Trump

We know that lots of people have openly discussed how it might be possible to prevent Donald Trump from completing his first term as president.

We have not, however, been treated to such openly-expressed musings from people with real heft inside the American political landscape���until now.

Have you met Rosa Brooks?

Brooks is a policy wonk, currently with the supposedly non-partisan think tank New America Foundation (because apparently there was something wrong with the old America), who previously served the Obama administration in an advisory capacity at both the Pentagon and State Department.

In a recent editorial blog article for Foreign Policy magazine, Brooks used the space to focus on the four ways it might be possible to ���get rid��� of Trump, including having him declared unfit to serve on the basis of diminished mental capacity.

You read that right.

The article is a drawn-out, demeaning, insulting critique of Trump, one that might be laughable if not for the fact that it is written by a relevant former member of the Obama team whose tone throughout the piece seems fairly serious.

As for Brooks��� four suggested methods by which the country can see Trump removed from office, the first is for the electorate to simply hang on until the next election when ���American voters will presumably have come to their senses and be prepared to throw the bum out.���

Nice. But it gets better.

The next idea on Brooks��� list is impeachment, writing that ���the good news is that Congress doesn���t need evidence of actual treason or murder to move forward with an impeachment: Practically anything can be considered a ���high crime or misdemeanor.������

Wow. She wasn���t finished, however. Brooks��� next idea involves the complicity of none other than the vice president, Mike Pence, in an invocation of the 25th Amendment:

���This previously obscure amendment states that ���the Vice President and a majority of ��� the principal officers of the executive departments��� can declare the president ���unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,��� in which case ���the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.������

And, finally, Brooks suggests that when all else fails���there is the option of military coup.

Yup; military coup.

At least she didn���t suggest assassination as an option. Perhaps Brooks sees that as a little too extreme, even as she apparently thinks a military coup is fine.

Thank goodness for restraint.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

More ���Doing What He Said He Would Do���: Trump Nominates Respected Constitutionalist to SCOTUS

Much of the world apparently doesn���t know what to make of a President of the United States who gets right to work doing the things he said he would do if elected.

Although many are up in arms over the executive orders and other moves made by the new president since he took over from President Obama, it seems difficult to deny that Donald Trump is merely proceeding with the pledges he made on the campaign trail.

And one of his biggest pledge fulfillments so far was his choice to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

On Tuesday, every media outlet, including The Hill, gave due space and attention to Trump���s decision to nominate Neil Gorsuch, presently a federal appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, to sit on the bench of the highest court in the land.

The perception of an increase in judicial activism on the part of the Court, combined with the nomination of left-leaning judges by President Obama during his term in office, made the 2016 election a single-issue contest for many Republican voters.

Trump, in making the announcement from the White House before a large and very-receptive audience, cited the singular importance of the Supreme Court nomination to so much of the GOP electorate.

���Millions of voters said this was the single most important issue to them, and I am a man of my word and will do what I say, something the American people have been asking of Washington for a very long time,��� the president said.

As The Hill points out, Gorsuch is known to be an ���originalist��� as a jurist, one who looks to interpret the Constitution as it was originally written. This perspective sits in opposition to those who believe it should be viewed as a ���living, breathing��� document to be interpreted in terms of how society has changed and evolved.

In accepting the nomination, Gorsuch casually reiterated his belief as to how the Constitution should be seen by a Supreme Court Justice:

���Standing here, in a house of history and acutely aware of my own imperfections, I pledge that if I���m confirmed I���ll do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws of this great country,��� Gorsuch said.

Although some Democratic politicians, like Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), were quick to express their reservations over the nomination, and others, including Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), have already vowed to oppose it outright, Gorsuch has enjoyed relatively warm, bipartisan support in previous confirmation processes. As a matter of fact, when he was nominated to the appellate court back in 2006, the support for Gorsuch was so strong he was confirmed with a voice vote.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

CA on the Way to Becoming First State to Officially Recognize a Third Option for Gender

No surprise here; just more of California being California.

According to The Christian Post, a California State Senator has introduced a bill into the legislature that would allow for a third gender identification option, in addition to the apparently old and boring ���male��� and ���female��� identifiers.

The senator, Toni Atkins, introduced Senate Bill 179, The Gender Recognition Act of 2017, last week, along with fellow senator Scott Weiner. The bill would allow for the adding of a third ���non-binary information marker��� on documents pertaining to the establishment and verification of official identity, like birth certificates and driver���s licenses.

As detailed in the Legislative Counsel���s Digest, ���Existing law authorizes a person who was born in this state and who has undergone clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition to obtain a new birth certificate from the State Registrar.

���This bill would delete the requirement that an applicant have undergone any treatment and instead would authorize a person to submit to the State Registrar an application to change gender on the birth certificate and an affidavit attesting, under penalty of perjury, that the request for a change of gender is to conform the person���s legal gender to the person���s gender identity and not for any fraudulent purpose. By requiring the affidavit to be attested to under penalty of perjury, this bill would create a crime, and thus impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize the change of gender on the new birth certificate to be female, male, or nonbinary.���

The Post points out that not everyone in California is on board, however. Jonathan Keller, CEO of the California Family Council, tore into the proposed legislation, saying the bill was simply propagating ���a falsehood.���

���While we are sympathetic to the difficulties facing those experiencing gender dysphoria, we believe government documents need to reflect biological facts for identification and medical purposes," Keller said.

���Laws like this will simply erase any meaningful gender definitions, if being male or female is completely divorced from biological facts. I hope the legislature rejects this bill quickly.���

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Columnist: Fired AG Sally Yates��� Behavior ���Textbook Case of Insubordination���

The uproar over President Donald Trump���s executive order on immigration, one that includes a 120-day moratorium on the admission of refugees into the United States as well as a 90-day ban on the entrance of citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries, led to a stunning moment Monday night when acting Attorney General Sally Yates was relieved of her duties for instructing Justice Department lawyers in a letter not to defend the order from legal challenges.

���At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful,��� said Yates in her missive.

While many were taken aback at the speed and abruptness with which Yates was terminated, Politico columnist Josh Blackman says that she left Trump with no choice in the matter.

Of Yates��� objections to the executive order, Blackman writes that ���she should have told the president her conclusions in confidence. If he disagreed, she had one option: resign. Instead, she made herself a political martyr and refused to comply. Trump obliged, and replaced her with the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Dana Boente.���

���This is a textbook case of insubordination,��� Blackman continued, ���and the president was well within his constitutional powers to fire her.���

At her 2015 confirmation for deputy attorney general, Yates said, ���I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.���

Blackman points out in his piece that ���Yates acknowledged that there was a credible argument that the executive order was constitutional,��� and that ���her objection, instead, was that the order was unwise or unjust. These may be valid points for a public citizen to raise, but the attorney general has a statutory duty to ���[r]epresent the United States in legal matters generally,��� regardless of her personal proclivities.���

���If Yates���s conscience said ���no,��� but the law said ���yes,��� her choice was to proudly voice those opinions,��� Blackman writes. ���Doing so would have been essential to maintaining the independence of the Justice Department. But if her entreaties were rebuffed, she should have resigned, and then publicly voiced her dissent.���

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Progressive Hipster Baristas on Their Way to Being Replaced by Robots

A variety of news outlets, including USA Today, are talking about ���Gordon,��� the nation���s first robotic barista, who began serving delicious cups of coffee on Monday.

That���s right ��� a robotic barista.

Henry Hu, CEO of Caf�� X Technologies, the company that built ���Gordon,��� says, ���A lot of us spend a lot of time in line waiting for coffee. And we decided to do something about it.���

After making their drink selections at the order stands, customers punch in their mobile numbers to receive a four-digit code that lets them pay, and they receive a text message when their orders are ready for pickup.

Although a natural concern for many is that the increasing trend toward an automated workforce will leave greater numbers of humans without jobs, there is an argument to be made that robots will not replace human workers as much as modify the nature of their responsibilities.

Assuming there is some truth to this, then the robotic barista is definitely a win-win; more jobs for humans in capacities other than servers, and, for customers, no more dealing with inept or smug (or both) counter help.

Also, no one to write stupid progressive stuff on the side of their coffee cups.

One question beckoned by the introduction of the robotic barista is if it will interfere with Starbucks��� plan to hire 10,000 refugees in the next five years.

Apparently not. According to the USA Today article, Starbucks says it has no plans to use the robots, citing the ���person-to-person connection between its service partners (reps) and customers.���

Lucky us.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Starbucks CEO Says He���ll Hire 10,000 Refugees over the Next 5 Years

The global employment picture appears to be brightening considerably���for refugees.

OK, that���s a bit of an overstatement, but there is at least one American mega-company that is going to make refugee-hiring a priority in the wake of Donald Trump���s executive order that halts, for the time being, the resettlement of refugees to the U.S., as well as temporarily bars citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries from gaining entry to the United States.

In a move widely reported by a number of media outlets, including The Blaze, the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, announced this past weekend that the coffee chain giant will be hiring 10,000 refugees worldwide over the next five years.

Schultz���s decision was announced in a memo to Starbucks employees.

���We have a long history of hiring young people looking for opportunities and a pathway to a new life around the world,��� he wrote. ���This is why we are doubling down on this commitment by working with our equity market employees as well as joint venture and licensed market partners in a concerted effort to welcome and seek opportunities for those fleeing war, violence, persecution and discrimination.���

Schultz also took the opportunity to mention other positions the company will be assuming that appear to conflict with the agenda of the new administration. Among those is a commitment by Starbucks to invest in Mexico at a time America���s new president is seeking to build a wall along the U.S. southern border, as well as impose trade tariffs on Mexican goods.

���We will continue to invest in this critically important market,��� Schultz said. ���We stand ready to help and support our Mexican customers, partners and their families as they navigate what impact proposed trade sanctions, immigration restrictions and taxes might have on their business and their trust of Americans.��� 

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

British Medical Association: Docs Shouldn���t Say ���Expectant Mothers��� to Avoid Offending Transgenders

Well, it was just a matter of time.

It appears that mothers, as in the word ���mother,��� is on the fast track to joining the steadily-growing collection of terms that can no longer be uttered out of deference to political correctness.

Think that���s hogwash? Check this out.

According to The Telegraph, the British Medical Association (BMA), the professional association and trade union for physicians in the United Kingdom, recently said in a memo to its members that the term ���expectant mothers��� should be replaced by ���pregnant people,��� so as not to offend those who are members of the transgender community.

The BMA is insisting, however, that this suggested change is merely that, a suggestion, and that it would not presume to tell its physician-members how to conduct themselves with patients.

The internal memo excerpted by The Telegraph reads, in part, ���Gender inequality is reflected in traditional ideas about the roles of women and men. Though they have shifted over time, the assumptions and stereotypes that underpin those ideas are often deeply-rooted.���

���A large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women,��� the memo continues. ���We can include intersex men and transmen who may get pregnant by saying ���pregnant people��� instead of ���expectant mothers.������

While Heather Ashton of TG Pals, a support group for transgenders, calls the guidance a ���massive step forward to prevent discrimination against��� trans people, a great many in Britain have voiced their strong objections to the suggested change, including Conservative MP (Member of Parliament) Philip Davies, who called it ���completely ridiculous.���

���If you can���t call a pregnant woman an expectant mother,��� Davies said, ���then what is the world coming to?���

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Russian Spy Who Allegedly Helped Compile Secret Dossier on Trump Found Dead

You know that 35-page dossier on Donald Trump supposedly put together by a British spy with the help of Russian intelligence reports, reports that suggested the existence of sex tapes involving Trump and Russian prostitutes?

Well, one of the key figures behind the whole mess has suddenly turned up dead.

It is not the British spy, now identified as Christopher Steele, who bit the dust, but, rather, the person believed to be his inside man on the Russian side of things, a former KGB spy by the name of Oleg Erovinkin.

According to The Sun, Erovinkin was found dead in the back of his car back on December 26.

Reportedly, the Russian ex-spook had been serving as an aide to Igor Sechin, the former Deputy Prime Minister in Vladimir Putin���s cabinet. Sechin is presently the chairman of Roseneft, an oil company that is majority-owned by the Russian government.

Back in 2014, a CNBC article indicated that Sechin is ���widely believed to be Russia's second-most powerful person.���

The Sun���s reporting notes that Sechin was himself a frequent mention in the dossier.

There has been no official cause of death released, although there are reports Erovinkin died of a heart attack.

In the back of a black Lexus.

Needless to say, the timing of Erovinkin���s passing, as well as the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death, have led to rampant speculation that his death is connected in some profound way to the dossier.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large